What are your ideas for the next contract (2013-2015)?
As we look at and work with our new contract, let's capture the ideas and questions that arise right here.
This article is a "parking lot" for our ideas for the next round of bargaining.
So, how does this work? Simply leave your ideas as a comment and we'll let the list grow until it's time to convey our ideas to the new bargaining team.
Click on the comment link to park your idea!
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
UMCC Meeting Notes, 2-11-11
UMCC Meeting – 1 to 3 p.m.
Present for employees:
Kerry Graber, Charles San Juan, Kathy Conaway, Sally Lawrence, Debbie Brookman (WFSE Staff)
Present for management:
Ted Sturdevant, Polly Zehm, Chris Parsons, Pat McLain, Erik Fairchild, Carol Fleskes, Corrina McElfish, Amy Heller
Agenda:
- Union Management Relationship
- Management Perspective – Ted
- Union Perspective
- Discussion
- How can we make the Union-Management relationship more productive?
- Wrap Up
Introductions
We went around the room, and Ted took the opportunity to announce that Pat is retiring, which is why Erik is there as he will be her replacement and will take up her role at UMCC meetings.
Union Management Relationship – Management Perspective
Ted kicked this off by sharing that he has been director now for one and a half years, and in this time he has seen the union/management relationship become increasing less effective and productive. He wanted to take this time to have a frank and honest discussion about our different perspectives. He believes it is important to understanding who we are, and our identity as an agency. It is an essential part of understanding what it means to be a part of this agency.
Ted feels at this point we should all know and understand the answers to certain questions, like the appropriate use of email. He believes at this point we should all have a mutual understanding of the rules of the road. He perceives that we feel they have been inflexible with adherence to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). It is his opinion that more trust and respect is needed all around.
He has been unhappy with what he called a “gotcha” mentality on the part of the bargaining unit. As an example he cited the budget ad hoc committee experience. During the summer of 2009 up to 2010 it is his perspective that a great deal of time and effort was expended on their part to meet, explain the budget, and share what they know. In the end he says we concluded they were “hiding the ball,” a conclusion we stated in our newsletter.
Another example came from the last meeting Ted held with stewards and UMCC elected members. The first issue brought to his attention during the meeting was a great deal of intensity about a newspaper story on extra furlough days. This turned out to be a mis-read of the situation, since it only applied to DSHS employees.
A third example was the most recent newsletter that mentioned three times that Ted was late to UMCC meetings. He felt it was unfair to place undue emphasis on that point, right after we had the steward/UMCC meeting where he had acknowledged our desire to have him present at future UMCC meetings, and he said he would make every effort to do so.
At this point Ted asked Chris to expand on the issue of flexibility and the HR perspective.
Chris said there is a need to provide balance in the amount of effort and resources applied to support the UMCC. We have had 15 meetings over the two year period of 2009 and 2010, well over the minimum required amount of two per year. He feels they have reached out and been more forthcoming and flexible because they were willing to meet more frequently. He expressed frustration that the bargaining unit has chosen to keep bringing up issues over and over that cannot be resolved because decisions have been made downtown at the Labor Relations Office (LRO). Chris feels many of the issues we bring forward and ask for flexibility are clearly addressed in the contract. By extension therefore it should be obvious what we are asking is not possible, and continuing to push Ecology is not going to be productive.
We seem to be suggesting that Ecology go against decisions made by LRO which have been made for the purpose of statewide consistency. Ted chimed in that he is not going to tell LRO that Ecology is going to do things its own way, as this is a route that would place him in direct conflict with his chain of command. Further there are important reasons for all of the agencies to be consistent on contract issues.
A second concern from Chris is in regard to Joan Gallagher’s claim that HR could have implemented the draft MOU agreement before it became final, thereby avoiding the number of problems that were grieved. Chris denies flatly that this is accepted practice in the negotiating world, that the last toffer provided by the opposing side in a demand to bargain if the bargaining session does not conclude in a timely manner can be implemented before reaching a final settlement. (Note: Joan’s point was that there would have been little to no risk to acting in good faith consistent with the last negotiated agreement in order to avoid the mess, but we were unable to get back to this point during this discussion.)
Chris also expressed exasperation at the amount of Temporary Lay Off (TLO) grievances filed by the union on behalf of Ecology employees that he felt were contrary to the clear language of the collective bargaining agreement and the MOU. He cited some examples. Amy and Chris also both feel that once the initial grievances were filed and consolidated by agreement it was no longer necessary to keep filing the same grievances each furlough day.
Polly was given a chance to provide additional thoughts before allowing us to respond. Her perspective is that the relationship has become increasingly more polarized when it should be a supportive relationship. She would like to see us select some things to work on together, and use this UMCC forum more effectively to figure out how. She recognized there will be a new contract, and there will be a whole new UMCC. She would like to see this relationship improve before then.
Union Management Relationship – Union Perspective
Kerry took the first opportunity to respond. She took a deep breath and said that was a lot to digest and respond to, and we would do our best to address each point.
First, remember that the Federation became the representative of the bargaining unit here at Ecology over six years ago. There have been two challenges to the Federation in the form of two de-certification attempts, and a significant majority of votes were cast to stay unionized with the Federation as our representative. So when we come to the table to talk about problems and issues, we expect that management will take them seriously because by election the UMCC represents the members as best they can under the system.
It has felt like we have been bringing issues and concerns to management through UMCC meetings only to be asked for and challenged to provide a litany of examples. This feels like we are not being believed, or that management does not think these issues or problems really represent how the majority of members feel. Yet in more recent experience, many of these same issues and concerns have been raised by members at the All-staff meetings, which should tell management that the UMCC is bringing legitimate problems to them, and that despite our own challenges we indeed have our fingers on the pulse of what is going on.
It is a challenge as a bargaining unit to be organized because we operate with a democratic process, an inherently messy process. We have a relatively small group of people that meet twice a month, and our issues are gleaned from those two groups. It is not a process of consensus, but a challenging process of figuring out what we need to bring forward to management. If management hears different messages from individuals, it represents the fact that no one person is in charge with one clear chain of command. Yet we are managing to figure out what is not working well and bring it to the UMCC to the best of our ability.
In regard to the newsletter, Kerry said she does not screen out people’s opinions. They are essentially opinion pieces with the voice of the writer. We try to make sure we get the facts right, but if Ted and others read something unpleasant in the newsletter, then it should be taken as a sign that there is more work to be done on an issue. I am not going to censor what are essentially the opinions of members and their right to express them openly. The newsletter provides a diversity of opinion.
In regard to claims that we should all be on the same page in regard to the “rules of the road,” or the CBA, there were two parties negotiating the contract yet we do not always agree on interpretations of the CBA. The union does not lightly support grievances, as there is a process of vetting them before a grievance committee (both local and statewide Kathy pointed out) to make sure there are grounds to support moving forward with it. And, it takes a great deal of courage for people to grieve, so the fact that so many have filed grievances should say something .
Further it was pointed out that when we ask for flexibility it is because we actually do believe they have discretion enough to address the issue. Debbie Brookman pointed out the fact that there are situations where Ecology clearly had discretion, but chose not to be flexible, as in their decision not to allow the chairperson of the budget committee to attend UMCC meetings. Debbie shared that the Federation has been trying to get an MOU signed with LRO agreeing that the first TLO grievances, if settled, would cover all others harmed under the implementation of the furloughs, and has so far refused to do so. That puts us in the position of having to continue to file grievances because we are required to file them when there are violations of the contract.
At this point we went to the video conference to ask Sally and Kathy to chime in. Sally said she appreciated the opportunity to have such an open discussion of the issues. Members at NWRO continue to be very frustrated with the inability to have regional high-cost pay implemented, and again in this new contract there will be no relief to a growing problem. Another person has departed for a job that pays $20,000 more per year for a local municipality.
Ted said he was aware of the difficulties being experienced at NWRO and shared her concerns. He said that whenever something like this happens the information is being tracked for when something can be done about it.
Kathy said she also appreciated the opportunity to have a frank discussion. She thinks something we (the bargaining unit) can look at is either provide more oversight of the newsletter, or be clear it is expressing opinions. She agreed with Polly that the relationship has been polarized.
Charles spoke up about the budget team in order to share the context of some of the conflict. Charles said the formation of the budget team was in response to a reduction-in-force situation that took place in the Water Quality Program. To members there seemed to be no accountability on the part of management for what was a serious lack of attentiveness to the budget. Accountability for how the resources are spent was the primary focus of members of the budget team, not just understanding how the mechanics of the budget works. Ted appreciated the clarification.
Ted wrapped up the discussion by sharing that he wants to be more intentional about this relationship. In regard to the newsletter, he doesn’t buy that we can’t control what is written. However on a positive note he suggested we convene the larger group with the stewards, and with a few additional managers, to have a broader discussion of all of these issues. Then have at least one more UMCC meeting after the session is over. (It was suggested for May, and have the larger group meet before then.)
We are to contact Teri to set up the large group meeting. HR will set up what will be our last UMCC before this UMCC group “retires.” We are to collaborate on an agenda and think about what are some things that need addressing that we can work on together. It was suggested that we talk at that last meeting about how the new UMCC system will work, and how best to transition to new regional UMCC meetings. Kerry suggested that Scott Mallery be allowed to attend since he was directly involved in negotiating that part of the contract on behalf of Ecology employees.
This ended the meeting.
Grievance settlement wins gains for Ecology employees
- by Paul Pickett
Thanks to an innovative settlement between union members and Ecology management, employees have now gained a significant new benefit. As Ecology Human Resources staff in 2011 review all of the agency’s positions for their overtime designation, employees will have an improved process that provides transparency and an opportunity for input.
The story begins over a year ago, when Water Resources Program staff received notice that Ecology had changed their overtime status from Overtime Exempt to Overtime Eligible. Many of the staff were concerned because they had no input into the process and their supervisors weren’t asked about the change. When they reviewed their files, and there was no documentation about how their position was reviewed other than a cursory checklist. On the checklist it appeared that they had been changed from Exempt to Eligible solely because they did not have a college degree.
Five employees from ERO, CRO, and HQ put their names on the line to protest this action through a grievance. Their complaint cited the violation of 5 contract provisions, including compliance with state and federal law, impacts on promotion and layoff options, proper notification procedures, and discrimination.
The situation raised some interesting issues in the union context. Typically, unions want employees to be overtime eligible so they can earn overtime pay, and federal labor law reflects this. However, at Ecology many employees appreciate the flexible schedule offered by being overtime exempt. Usually overtime eligible employees find themselves saddled with strict time keeping and reporting requirements. In addition, in the current budget crunch employees don’t expect management to approve any overtime pay.
After discussion among the grievants, stewards, and WFSE staff it was clear that this grievance was in principle about transparency and substantive process. Employees should know how a decision was made and have input so the decision is based on good information. This is relevant whether they prefer being overtime eligible or exempt.
On top of this was the concern that the use of an employee’s degree was arbitrary, since many jobs in Ecology have similar duties performed both by employees with degrees and by employees who have learned their profession on the job. Employees without degrees were concerned about the implications for promotion and layoff, and about the appearance that management was abandoning a career path for non-degreed staff into technical professional positions.
Management’s initial settlement offer was weak, and the grievants wanted more, both for themselves and for all employees. Thanks to the hard work of Susanna Fenner, WFSE Council Representative, tough negations followed and after many weeks of back and forth a settlement began to take shape. A final agreement was reached in early March.
What did the grievants and WFSE staff win?
Thanks to an innovative settlement between union members and Ecology management, employees have now gained a significant new benefit. As Ecology Human Resources staff in 2011 review all of the agency’s positions for their overtime designation, employees will have an improved process that provides transparency and an opportunity for input.
The story begins over a year ago, when Water Resources Program staff received notice that Ecology had changed their overtime status from Overtime Exempt to Overtime Eligible. Many of the staff were concerned because they had no input into the process and their supervisors weren’t asked about the change. When they reviewed their files, and there was no documentation about how their position was reviewed other than a cursory checklist. On the checklist it appeared that they had been changed from Exempt to Eligible solely because they did not have a college degree.
Five employees from ERO, CRO, and HQ put their names on the line to protest this action through a grievance. Their complaint cited the violation of 5 contract provisions, including compliance with state and federal law, impacts on promotion and layoff options, proper notification procedures, and discrimination.
The situation raised some interesting issues in the union context. Typically, unions want employees to be overtime eligible so they can earn overtime pay, and federal labor law reflects this. However, at Ecology many employees appreciate the flexible schedule offered by being overtime exempt. Usually overtime eligible employees find themselves saddled with strict time keeping and reporting requirements. In addition, in the current budget crunch employees don’t expect management to approve any overtime pay.
After discussion among the grievants, stewards, and WFSE staff it was clear that this grievance was in principle about transparency and substantive process. Employees should know how a decision was made and have input so the decision is based on good information. This is relevant whether they prefer being overtime eligible or exempt.
On top of this was the concern that the use of an employee’s degree was arbitrary, since many jobs in Ecology have similar duties performed both by employees with degrees and by employees who have learned their profession on the job. Employees without degrees were concerned about the implications for promotion and layoff, and about the appearance that management was abandoning a career path for non-degreed staff into technical professional positions.
Management’s initial settlement offer was weak, and the grievants wanted more, both for themselves and for all employees. Thanks to the hard work of Susanna Fenner, WFSE Council Representative, tough negations followed and after many weeks of back and forth a settlement began to take shape. A final agreement was reached in early March.
What did the grievants and WFSE staff win?
- Grievants will have 14 days to submit additional written documentation for their decision.
- During 2011, all employees will get notice that a review has occurred and whether they are overtime exempt or eligible. They will have 7 working days to provide more information, and if they do, HR will review the information and inform the employee of the outcome.
- Management confirmed that promotion and layoff options will be determined by positions requirements, not by overtime designation.
Ted says "Let's talk" to UMCC representatives
- By Kerry Graber
The UMCC met with managers on February 11, 2011 to talk about how to make the union/ management relationship work better. Ted Sturdevant, Chris Parsons, and Polly Zehm shared a number of concerns about the deterioration of the relationship, and expressed a desire to make it more productive. We were asked to stop asking for flexibility in the contract that they believe is not there, and we were asked to refrain from venting frustrations with their positions in our newsletter. They made an offer to work with us and to collaborate on issues that we could have more success at resolving, and they indicated a desire to engage with us toward solving problems.
The UMCC representatives listened attentively and responded to their concerns by explaining our positions and providing our perspective on how frustrated we are too. Since we have different interpretations of some of the articles within the contract, even though both parties have representatives at the bargaining table we walk away with two different perspectives on what is flexible and what isn’t. We were able to effectively point this out during the meeting, but there was no resolution to this conundrum during this meeting.
Ted offered to meet again with the larger group of stewards, activists, as well as UMCC representatives. This is scheduled for April 18, 2011. For a full text of meeting notes check the Ecology blog
The UMCC met with managers on February 11, 2011 to talk about how to make the union/ management relationship work better. Ted Sturdevant, Chris Parsons, and Polly Zehm shared a number of concerns about the deterioration of the relationship, and expressed a desire to make it more productive. We were asked to stop asking for flexibility in the contract that they believe is not there, and we were asked to refrain from venting frustrations with their positions in our newsletter. They made an offer to work with us and to collaborate on issues that we could have more success at resolving, and they indicated a desire to engage with us toward solving problems.
The UMCC representatives listened attentively and responded to their concerns by explaining our positions and providing our perspective on how frustrated we are too. Since we have different interpretations of some of the articles within the contract, even though both parties have representatives at the bargaining table we walk away with two different perspectives on what is flexible and what isn’t. We were able to effectively point this out during the meeting, but there was no resolution to this conundrum during this meeting.
Ted offered to meet again with the larger group of stewards, activists, as well as UMCC representatives. This is scheduled for April 18, 2011. For a full text of meeting notes check the Ecology blog
Seniority rights strike unpleasant chord for some
By Kerry Graber
A recent open meeting at Ecology prior to the vote on the 2011-13 contract drew a group of interested employees with questions about new provisions based on seniority. Among the attendees were a few vocal members upset about a feature of the new contract that allows existing state employees a first chance to transfer into open positions, even across agencies, by making a simple request. In the case of more than one qualified employee applying for the same position as a transfer, the position would be awarded to the employee with the greater seniority.
The dissenting opinion expressed at the meeting by this small group is that all hiring decisions, both transfers and promotions, should only be based on merit, and that seniority should place no part in that.
Elected vice-president Sue Hendrickson and chief negotiator Cecil Tibbetts listened carefully, and then explained that this provision was a significant win for members. Cecil described a situation where an individual, having taken a promotion to a remote regional office, then experienced a change in his family situation and desired to return to the office he came from. Due to hard feelings created by the promotion, the individual could not get the desired transfer. Under the new provision such individuals have a way to move to a new work site when a position opens. Sue further explained that seniority is a basic, foundational value of the union philosophy.
After a few attempts to provide more detailed explanations, the upset members left the meeting when Sue and Cecil wanted to move on to field other questions and give other members a chance to speak. It was clear they were not satisfied with the response, and did not want to stay to hear about the other new provisions of the contract.
Seniority as a basic union value has a long history, but it was to my surprise not held by everyone in the bargaining unit. A little research on the AFSCME.org website yielded an interesting article about the concerns of young members of unions.
Failing to engage in a debate, even on such an established value as seniority, clearly has a cost. We lose out as an organization any time a member feels their concerns are not fully heard by the bargaining unit or member leaders. We are diminished as a community when we fail to foster a civil discourse about values that are important to members because by that failure we alienate a generation of members that are the future.
I invite anyone who wants to talk about seniority in the new contract, or any other union-related issue, to have this civil discourse with the leadership of the bargaining unit. Interested members are always welcome to noon meetings held on the second Tuesday of the month, and agenda items are open to suggestions. Scott Mallery at ERO and I co-facilitate these meetings, and either of us can place discussion items on the agenda.
These meetings are an ideal opportunity for members to ask questions and express opinions. I particularly invite the individuals who came to the contract information meeting to please return to a future discussion session with your peers and help us understand your point of view. We may not agree with each other, but we will all benefit from a respectful dialogue.
A recent open meeting at Ecology prior to the vote on the 2011-13 contract drew a group of interested employees with questions about new provisions based on seniority. Among the attendees were a few vocal members upset about a feature of the new contract that allows existing state employees a first chance to transfer into open positions, even across agencies, by making a simple request. In the case of more than one qualified employee applying for the same position as a transfer, the position would be awarded to the employee with the greater seniority.
The dissenting opinion expressed at the meeting by this small group is that all hiring decisions, both transfers and promotions, should only be based on merit, and that seniority should place no part in that.
Elected vice-president Sue Hendrickson and chief negotiator Cecil Tibbetts listened carefully, and then explained that this provision was a significant win for members. Cecil described a situation where an individual, having taken a promotion to a remote regional office, then experienced a change in his family situation and desired to return to the office he came from. Due to hard feelings created by the promotion, the individual could not get the desired transfer. Under the new provision such individuals have a way to move to a new work site when a position opens. Sue further explained that seniority is a basic, foundational value of the union philosophy.
After a few attempts to provide more detailed explanations, the upset members left the meeting when Sue and Cecil wanted to move on to field other questions and give other members a chance to speak. It was clear they were not satisfied with the response, and did not want to stay to hear about the other new provisions of the contract.
Seniority as a basic union value has a long history, but it was to my surprise not held by everyone in the bargaining unit. A little research on the AFSCME.org website yielded an interesting article about the concerns of young members of unions.
“THE GRAYING OF AFSCME. The challenge of embracing younger workers is critical for AFSCME. A survey conducted by Kiley & Company in April 1999 estimates that 69 percent of the membership is 40 and older.
This is consistent with the graying of government workers generally. Nearly half of all government workers are 45 and older; workers 35 and under comprise 27.3 percent of all government workers.
According to the ‘Government Employment Report,’ state and local governments will be ‘strongly affected by retirements over the next decade.’ ”
What Generation Gap? By Jimmie TurnerThe article goes on to feature younger generation activists and their approach to union activism. These activists feel that key to closing the gap between younger and older members is addressing this issue of seniority with dialogue, particularly with members in a leadership role.
Failing to engage in a debate, even on such an established value as seniority, clearly has a cost. We lose out as an organization any time a member feels their concerns are not fully heard by the bargaining unit or member leaders. We are diminished as a community when we fail to foster a civil discourse about values that are important to members because by that failure we alienate a generation of members that are the future.
I invite anyone who wants to talk about seniority in the new contract, or any other union-related issue, to have this civil discourse with the leadership of the bargaining unit. Interested members are always welcome to noon meetings held on the second Tuesday of the month, and agenda items are open to suggestions. Scott Mallery at ERO and I co-facilitate these meetings, and either of us can place discussion items on the agenda.
These meetings are an ideal opportunity for members to ask questions and express opinions. I particularly invite the individuals who came to the contract information meeting to please return to a future discussion session with your peers and help us understand your point of view. We may not agree with each other, but we will all benefit from a respectful dialogue.
Scuttle state contracts, Zarelli/Tom legislation says
- from the Federation Hotline
Senate Republicans have now targeted the just-ratified Federation’s General Government contract and the eight higher education contracts still being negotiated. Sen.Joe Zarelli, Sen. Rodney Tom, and seven other Republican senators introduced Senate Bill 5870 March 8 that says the General Government agreement and, prospectively, the eight higher ed agreements are not financially feasible. SB 5870 has been referred to the Senate Ways and Means Committee.
Senate Republicans have now targeted the just-ratified Federation’s General Government contract and the eight higher education contracts still being negotiated. Sen.Joe Zarelli, Sen. Rodney Tom, and seven other Republican senators introduced Senate Bill 5870 March 8 that says the General Government agreement and, prospectively, the eight higher ed agreements are not financially feasible. SB 5870 has been referred to the Senate Ways and Means Committee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)