Furloughs - Governor to Employees: “Drop Dead!”

By Rebekah Padgett and Paul Pickett

Your union and your member leaders have been fighting hard to stop or mitigate employee furloughs (“temporary layoffs”).  First WFSE staff and members fought to block SSB 6503 (the furlough bill) which was finally passed by the legislature signed by the Governor into law in April. Then member leaders - stewards and the UMCC – listened to employees and raised their issues to agency management. Despite all our efforts, state managers have ignored the union, refusing to develop an agency plan to mitigate furlough impacts on employees.

By now you’ve probably read Ted’s e-mail.  At 22 other agencies an almost identical e-mail has been sent out to staff.  We want to fill you in on the rest of the furlough story.

WFSE filed a demand to bargain on furloughs because the state has proceeded with plans for implementation without bargaining (a requirement of our contract).  WFSE will bargain over the furloughs on a statewide level.  OFM has yet to schedule that bargaining with the union. 

Furlough FAQ
Based on your input we developed a full page list of questions about the furloughs, including how it will work for staff with part-time and flex schedules, those funded by federal dollars, and Spills responders.  We gave Ecology management that list in April.  Ted’s e-mail has a link to a DOP page that provides some answers, and Ecology management has provided responses as well in Inside Ecology.

Furlough Alternatives
The furlough bill states that agencies need to implement compensation reductions and allows for agency plans to be developed to meet these reductions.  The 10 furlough days are to be implemented if an alternative plan is not prepared.  Member leaders urged Ted and Polly to develop an alternative plan. We developed a list of alternatives to furloughs that could meet or exceed the $3.2M overall savings required under the bill, and presented it to management.  Our list includes:

• Elimination of funded vacancies (management said is this is not an option, although we’ve heard that the State Attorney General’s office is doing it).

• Accounting for educational and voluntary unpaid leave. (although many employees told us they would be willing to take extra days of unpaid leave, management says not enough people would be willing to do this and that it would be too hard for the agency to track) 

• Providing incentives for early retirement. (the State Department of Commerce has done this, even though Ecology management told us this isn’t an option.) 

• Now Ecology management has announced that it will not submit a plan, instead falling back to the 10 furlough days. 

Furlough Equity?
Ecology management stated that the Governor has told all cabinet agencies that she wants to see buildings shut down on the same days in order to have a noticeable impact to the public.  However, according to union and media, some 75% of state employees are exempted from furloughs.  We’ve also heard the Governor say that some agencies won’t have 10 furlough days.  So the impact of the state government closures is watered down.  Also, it’s unfair for only 25% of state employees to bear the burden of furloughs. 

On a recent visit to NWRO, Ted said that if the agencies did develop plans and found furlough alternatives, it would look like we could absorb the cuts, and agencies could get hit even harder next session.  So it seems that it’s more of a political than financial issue.

Mitigation for Furloughs
In May, we also provided management with a list of mitigation approaches to maximize flexibility and mitigation of pay if furloughs are implemented.  Examples include allowing staff to take “voluntary temporary layoff” days on days of our own choosing in place of furlough days, select our own furlough days if we have to take them, and determine what work won’t get done so we’re not trying to do the same work in fewer days.  By the way, Ted said he doesn’t want to see “do same with less” or “do more with less” and asked us to prioritize our work and talk to managers about what timelines may need to be adjusted. 

So far, the only positive response we’ve seen is management’s acknowledgement that staff would get a double whammy in March 2011 with two paycheck hits in one month.

What Can We Do Now?
While we wait for the furlough bargaining to work its way through the system, we’re still working to find ways to lessen the impacts.  Here’s what you can do:

• Read the three documents that Ecology member leaders developed: furlough questions, alternatives, and mitigations. They are posted on our Ecology blog at  http://wfsec2-Ecology.blogspot.com/

• Block out the furlough dates on your calendar.  

• Begin a discussion with your supervisor about reducing your workload to address the lost time from the furlough days.

• Keep in mind that the furloughs are still subject to bargaining.

• Call WFSE Carol Dotlich (WFSE Council 28 President) and Greg Devereux (WFSE Executive Director) at 1-800-562-6002 (on your own time and with a personal phone) and ask them to go to the mat for us.  We’ve passed resolutions at the Local level asking them to seek an injunction and fight the furloughs, but they need to hear from you.

 Read the WFSE Hotline (on www.wfse.org, or you can subscribe to an email feed) to find out the latest information on how WFSE is responding to the furlough situation. ■

UMCC Continues to Push for a More Transparent Budget, Process

By Kerry Graber
For a full text of  Union Management Communications Committee (UMCC) notes and agendas for April, May, and future meetings check the blog address above.

Since Ecology management declined to continue talks with the UMCC Budget Ad-hoc committee, the regular UMCC committee meetings have been largely taken up with discussions about implementing Ecology’s Book 2 budget.  Committee members, with the addition of Scott Mallery, Budget Ad-hoc Committee chair, continue to question Pat McLain and Polly Zehm about potential lay-offs, the health of various dedicated accounts, and the impacts of further general fund reductions and furloughs.  It has been a mutually frustrating experience as we try to navigate terminology and understand each other’s point of reference.

I have been personally challenged over the tone of one of the articles in this newsletter that reflected the level of frustration over the lack of transparency in budget matters at Ecology.  I understand this is the reason that future meetings with the Ad-Hoc Budget Committee were declined by management.
Reflecting on this I told the UMCC committee that we have to strive to be clear, and if possible, more straight forward when we ask for something, including why we are asking for it.  We have to realize that the perspectives from the staff level are very different than those at the management level.  We have to continue a respectful dialogue, even when we are frustrated.  Even so, the refusal to meet with the ad-hoc committee feels retaliatory. 

For my part it makes the UMCC meetings less effective because we have been denied our request to have the more budget-savvy members also present.  In this case the contract is being used by management to limit the membership to seven, with a concession of adding only one additional person (Scott).

I’ve had time to take a deeper look at the dynamics of the UMCC process in light of what we’ve all been through in these tough budget times.  I asked myself, why would our management be surprised that we express frustration and rancor?

We’ve asked Ecology’s management to trim their investment in the WMS/EMS system and save staff level jobs. Their response to this has been negligible.  Ecology remains one of the biggest users of the two management systems, with 16% of staff at Ecology either WMS or EMS. 

They have told us they must lay off people; we’ve been through two waves and are approaching a third wave.  Now we are asked to make a public sacrifice of 5% of our salary through furloughs.  They are surprised that we want to know how they are spending money?

The bulletin article on budget asserted there were two possible explanations for the lack of detailed information.  One possibility was a deliberate withholding of the information we asked for.  The other was that the people in charge of the overall budget actually do not know the answers when they should.

I have come to believe the truth is something far more complicated.  It is clear from recent discussions at the last UMCC meeting that the Programs hold the information we are looking for.  Our assumptions that the top managers would know the answers, would need to know the kinds of information we want to know in order to run the agency, are incorrect.  The big budget picture is held, I am sure, with great care and accountability by Pat and the management team.  They believe it is all they need to operate the agency because their concerns are big picture concerns that do not involve detail. They simply do not need to know on a daily or even weekly basis how many funded vacancies there are in the agency or even how they are funded. 

The program budgets that roll up into the big picture are the domain of each program manager.  It was stated to the UMCC in our last discussion that system works on the basis of trust.  Trust that the program managers, and their WMS budget planners, are managing allotments correctly and for the greater good of the agency.  While this apparently feels natural to the managers we meet with in the UMCC meetings, it has caused me to wonder about accountability.

Would a system of trust pass an audit from the State Auditor’s Office...if they could get someone to explain it to them? 

The concerns I have are not without basis.  The first wave of layoffs were caused by over spending in the Water Quality Program, and underperformance of their permit fee fund.  Conveying concerns about whether there is anyone at the wheel of this supertanker is our challenge both as communicators and representatives of Ecology members.

Your UMCC representatives remain resolved to push for a transparent budget, an “open-book” system, so we can all know with a degree of certainty that yes, sacrifices are necessary and yes, all alternatives to our sacrifice have been employed. Please encourage and support your elected representative, this is really hard work. ■

Ted's Regional Visits

By Rebekah Padgett

In an unprecedented effort by an agency director, Ted Sturdevant is heading to all of Ecology’s offices to spend time getting to know the regions and the work that we do.  May 10-13 was NWRO’s turn.  Ted kicked off the visit by meeting with the Regional Management Team and then held an All Staff Meeting.  There was a lot of emotion in the room as applause broke out in support of staff concerns about furloughs.  Ted met with many of the program sections and went on a few tours. 

While most of the visit was heavily programmed with program section meetings and tours, and there was little opportunity for one-on-one contact with staff, our RD made sure that I got in to chat with Ted (thank you Jeannie!).  I had a good meeting with Ted in which we discussed several issues from workload to furloughs to the need for action on geographic pay.  Throughout our meeting I pointed out that the dollar doesn’t stretch as far here as it does elsewhere, so each of these cuts deeper for staff at NWRO.  I also told him that the furlough is the straw that breaks the camel’s back for many.  He indicated that being in our office, talking with us this week, did build his understanding of the challenges we face in this region. 

Ted committed to talking with Jay Manning (former ECY Director and current Chief of Staff for Gov. Gregoire) about the furlough issue.  He later told me that there was a “vigorous discussion” at the cabinet retreat last week that included the Governor, but you see where that got us.

I followed up by sending Ted the geographic pay report that we provided to Jeannie, Jay, and Gov. Gregoire.  By the way, if anyone is willing to spend some time updating the report with more current data/research, let me know.

Ted has already made it to NWRO and CRO, but as he makes his rounds to other regions, be sure to get in to talk with him about regional issues, the salary survey, and how the cuts are hurting you (increased health care costs, furloughs, pay inequity with peers outside of the agency, etc.). 

We asked that he make more time in his schedule for one-on-one meetings with staff.  Here’s the current schedule for upcoming visits:

SWRO: split over 6/9-6/10 and 9/13-9/14
BFO: tentatively 7/14-7/15
ERO: week of 7/19

Note: A request to provide time for individual appointments has been made to the SWRO Regional Director.   ■

Ecology Bargaining Unit Begins Strategic Plan Update

Did you know we have a strategic plan?  It is out of date.  Member-leaders are getting together on June 12 to review where we’ve been and where we need to go as a bargaining unit.

If you would like to be in the loop attend the next bargaining unit meeting.  Meetings are held monthly on the second Tuesday of the month at noon.  Check for meeting room assignments at HQ/SWRO or with the stewards in your office on how to attend.

Furlough fight heats up

DSHS IN A DITHER OVER INITIALS IN UNION’S FURLOUGH BUTTONS

From the WFSE.org Hotline 6/1/10

Management representatives in the Department of Social and Health Services have raised objections to the Federation’s “No Furloughs!” buttons.



They apparently are aghast at the art design where the first two letters of the word “furloughs” are made to stand out. They allege that this stands for a scatological term that actually has the initials “FY.”  ■

DSHS, 22 OTHER AGENCIES GIVE UP ON ALTERNATIVES, ANNOUNCE FURLOUGHS STARTING JULY 12; BARGAINING PENDING
From the WFSE.org Hotline 6/2

/10  

The Department of Social and Health Services and 22 other agencies have thrown up their hands and refused to come up with alternatives to employee furloughs.

 

The Office of Financial Management today (June 2) in a letter to Federation Executive Director Greg Devereux said the 23 agencies will not submit a compensation reduction plan. That means the default option—10 furlough days from July 12, 2010, to June 10, 2011.

 

“It is not in the department’s best interest to submit a different compensation reduction plan to OFM,” DSHS Secretary Susan Dreyfus told employees in an e-mail today.

 

Both OFM and Dreyfus said bargaining will take place and only then will a list of exempt and non-exempt job classes be available.

 

In a sign of how far out in the stratosphere management is, they have stopped using the term “furloughs” because of the union’s “NO FURLOUGHS!” buttons. Instead, they call the furloughs “temporary layoffs.”

 

The Federation as you know has filed demands to bargain and is contemplating other action. We are following court proceedings in New York and California where AFSCME overturned furloughs. But we have to build a case on our state’s particular furlough plan because the New York and California furloughs were overturned on a different set of facts. Stay tuned.  The 23 agencies that have declared they will not seek alternative plans are: 

Agriculture; Arts Commission; Commerce; Corrections; Criminal Justice Training Commission; Social and Health Services; Early Learning; Ecology; Employment Security; Fish and Wildlife; General Administration; Health; Health Care Authority; Human Rights Commission; Information Services; Labor and Industries; Licensing; Office of Minority and Women’s Business Enterprises; Recreation and Conservation Office; Services for the Blind; Utilities and Transportation Commission; Veterans Affairs; and Workforce