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.
2 comments:
I wish to respond to the article, "Seniority Rights Strike Unpleasant Chord for Some."
First, the author portrays the people who spoke up as a tiny, misguided group. To the contrary, I suspect that if the union had asked scientists their feelings on the issue, they would have found that the vast majority would agree that hiring should be based on merit.
Second, if the vice-president and chief negotiator "listened carefully," they certainly didn't acknowledge that we have a valid point-of-view. I understand the concern expressed that the reason for the seniority rule is to avoid abuses of the "old boy" network. But imposing a blanket seniority rule just institutes a different abuse in the system. In scientific disciplines, technical merit is the gold standard. Would you want your cardiologist to be the person who got the job by seniority or by being the best at diagnosing and treating heart problems?
Finally, the author stated that "the upset members left the meeting when Sue and Cecil wanted to move on...and did not want to stay to hear about the other new provisions of the contract." I cannot speak for others, but the reason I left the meeting then was that I needed to run an errand on what was left of my lunch break.
Two notes of clarification to my earlier post:
a) There are a lot of scientists at Ecology.
b) Seniority has its place, especially in situations in which the jobs are largely the same and any job can be done by any of the applicants in the pool. But seniority shouldn't trump everything all the time.
Post a Comment