The Ecology Newsletter Blog has moved!

Find it on WFSE.org > Focus On > Ecology Newsletter.

2013-2015 contract ratified

General Government contract has been ratified. The results of online voting are Accept – 2,421 and Reject - 169.

SUMMARY OF THE TENTATIVE MASTER AGREEMENT


This is a summary that highlights the most significant provisions of The Tentative Master Agreement for General Government between the Washington Federation of State Employees bargaining units and the State of Washington, on behalf of the individual agencies. The tentative agreement was signed Sept. 15. This summary does not cover every article or every provision. 

For more details, please refer to the Tentative Agreement online at WFSE.org.

MAJOR GOALS OF THE NEW CONTRACT

The Federation’s General Government tentative agreement on the 2013-2015 contract achieves several major goals and continues the fight to hold the line on health care costs:

• A compensation package with no more cuts. THE 3% PAY CUT ENDS;
• The Compensation package also includes a POSSIBLE 1% COLA in the second year if certain economic goals are reached by February 2014;
• The M STEP will bring an immediate 2.5% pay boost 7/1/13 to General Government members who have been at the current top step, Step L, for six years; others will get it as they become eligible;
• A “me-too” clause in the event the state agrees to more favorable treatment on economic issues in any other general government units (see MOU #4);
• Personal Leave Days (one in each year) remain and expanded to include Institutions workers;
• Comp time accrual rate increased;
• Supplemental bargaining on agency-specific issues in eight agencies: DES, DSHS, DOT, DOA, Parks, DOC, ESD and Liquor Control Board;
• Plus there were notable improvements to non-economic articles.

FIGHT CONTINUES TO HOLD THE LINE ON HEALTH CARE

Article 43 on Health Benefits Amounts will restate that this will be the Health Benefits Agreement between the state and the WFSE/AFSCME-led Health Care Coalition of Unions.

The Health Care Coalition will continue negotiations on this article affecting all unions to uphold your goal of holding the line on health care.

At the time the Tentative Agreement booklet was printed and mailed, it appeared that goal had been achieved, but in the final hours of Sept. 14, a formal agreement was not completed. So this issue will be split from all union contracts and negotiated separately.

• If the coalition reaches agreement quickly, that health care agreement will also go to you for a separate ratification vote. 

• If an agreement takes longer to achieve, the terms and conditions of the current health care agreement remain in place until June 30, 2014 – including the current provision that you pay 15% of your premiums and the state pays 85%. 

 Under this “bifurcated” arrangement, the General Government contract can go forward independent of the health care article; you would retain contract protections and if a health care benefits amount agreement is not reached quickly, you would retain the current 85/15 premium split through June 30, 2014.

Visit www.wfse.org for more information!

Stewards' Corner, 10/2012

By Paul Pickett, Asst. Chief Steward

Oral Reprimands

One of the really tricky issues for stewards is understanding the gray line between “expectations” and “oral reprimands”. Sometimes employees are given verbal guidelines that feel like discipline. Sometime employees get an oral reprimand, but don’t know their rights. If you find yourself uncomfortable with what your supervisor is telling you, you should discuss it with a steward.
Some ideas to consider if you find yourself in this situation:

• Managers will often provide you with their expectations. This may well be “corrective”. You should take this as constructive if you can. Have a conversation around the manager’s expectations so you understand what she wants and she understands how you are going to try to meet them.

• If you are given expectations that you think may be unrealistic and you can’t resolve the disagreement through a conversation, try to document your concerns in writing (in an email). Talk to a steward so we can strategize and get the language of the email just right.

• If you are being called into a meeting where you believe some “corrective” actions will be discussed, you have a choice. You can go by yourself and find out what ‘s going on. Take really good written notes! Or tell your manager you want a steward to participate in the meeting, and find a steward who can help. A steward can be a witness, take better notes than you can (being on the hot seat) and then help you interpret what happened in the meeting. 

• Remember: it’s your legal right to have representation if you feel a meeting may lead to disciplinary action. This is called your Weingarten Rights, after a Supreme Court case. You can ask for representation at any time, including in the middle of a meeting. We’ve seen cases where in the middle of a meeting an employee asks to be represented, and the meeting is stopped right then and there and rescheduled to continue later with a steward present. Agency management and HR have been pretty good about allowing a steward in on a meeting even if it’s not exactly disciplinary.

• If you think you are getting an oral reprimand, they should tell you. If you aren’t sure, ask. If it’s an oral reprimand, you have the right to a grievance if you think it’s violating the contract. If it’s not, you may still need to have a plan to deal with the situation. So in either case, talk to a steward right away.

Evaluation Season is here!

It’s October, and once again you are facing your evaluation. Everyone has to be evaluated, but it’s probably the process most poorly understood. We are rerunning our tips from last year, as a reminder, refresher, or maybe an eye-opener.

Here are a few basic tips that should help:

1. Evaluations are just your supervisor’s opinion. They are supposed to be constructive, not disciplinary, and you don’t have to agree with what they say.
   
2. Review the evaluation and suggest edits. The best situation is where you can negotiate language that you can both live with. If something bugs you, try wording it differently.  And it’s ok to agree to work on areas of improvement.
   
3. If your supervisor won’t change language to something acceptable, write a rebuttal into Section 4. Feel free to add extra sheets. This is your chance to tell your side of the story. They have to include it whether they like it or not.
   
4. You have to sign the evaluation or face a charge of insubordination. You are just signing that you have read it, not that you agree. If you don’t like the evaluation, make a note above your signature that you have read the evaluation but disagree with the findings.

New PERS-2 rates adopted

By Pete Kmet

On July 25, the Select Committee on Pension Policy adopted new rates that will be effective next year on July 1, 2013. There is a significant increase in PERS 2 rates for employers and a modest PERS 2 rate increase for employees.  This will put additional pressure on the new biennium’s state budget, as well as result in a small decrease in take home pay for employees under PERS 2.

These pension fund increases are due to the unfunded anticipated liability for PERS 1, low rates of return, and the legislature’s goal of catching up the PERS Plan 1 by June 30, 2024. (All PERS pension funds are pooled together.)

Legislative action to reduce these rates is unlikely. This is because any reductions or deferrals will cause these pensions to get even further behind in future bienniums.

Below is a table showing the current and future contribution rates among many of the state’s retirement systems, including Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS), Teachers' Retirement System (TRS), School Employees' Retirement System (SERS), Public Safety Employees' Retirement System (PSERS), and Washington State Patrol Retirement System (WSPRS).



For additional information, go to the Department of Retirement Systems website.

2013-2015 Contract - Bargaining Update

July 11, 2012 UPDATE

The General Government Bargaining Team negotiated Tuesday, July 10th  and Wednesday, July 11th and sent a number of proposals and counterproposals to the management side of the table.
In the end, the parties reached tentative agreement on three more articles and an appendix. That means 32 of the 54 articles have been wrapped up – an amazing accomplishment at this early stage of negotiations.

The team also elected its three representatives to serve on the Health Care Coalition bargaining team: Gabe Hall, Local 862, Green Hill School; Craig Gibelyou, Local 793, Western State Hospital; and Jeff Paulsen, Local 443, Consolidated Technology Services.

The General Government Bargaining Team goes back to the table Aug. 14. The team wants members to stay tuned for any calls to action once the economic picture becomes clearer after the next two weeks.

• Visit WFSE.org from your home computer for more information! Bargaining updates appear in HOTLINE reports and are posted by team in the General Governement Bargaining Center (left column).

Stewards Corner

By Paul Pickett, EAP/HQ, Assistant Chief Steward

Summer brought a raft of challenges to your Ecology shop stewards:

• We discovered that the current stewards list shows jurisdictions that don’t allow stewards to represent employees who work in a different county. We are now working with WFSE to change jurisdictions from “work county” to all the counties in the same region.

• Stewards have been grappling with how management is using “in-training” positions. We recently filed a grievance because an ES2 was being hired at the ES1 level as “in-training”, but HR would not take a candidate from the ES1 layoff list. 

• Stewards helped an employee with a disability who was being asked to work under an “Emergency Plan” which included inappropriate judgments about the employee’s medical condition and work productivity. After intervention with HR the plan was withdrawn, and a Reasonable Accommodation plan put in place instead. 

• Problems in the Spills Program continue with disagreements over steward communication, Standby Pay, and security procedures.

• Bargaining season is crazy season. HR has cracked down on union communication, insisting on a very narrow interpretation of stewards’ use of agency email. They seem to think that one steward can email one employee to represent them on a particular problem, but that a steward cannot email multiple employees about a meeting to discuss contract-related issues, which is clearly allowed by the contract. This being grieved.

HQ/SWRO Local Update - Building a Foundation

A group of members from HQ and SWRO have been working hard to build a foundation for the newly approved Ecology local…but there is still a lot to be done. One of the most important building blocks of a new local is the election of officers. Are you interested in sharing your skills with the new local and want to run for an office?  Would you be interested in volunteering for a few hours to help run the election? We are looking for members interested in being active in the new local and helping shape its foundation. Contact Elena Guilfoil or Annie Szvetecz for more information about officer positions or volunteering for the ad-hoc Election Committee.

Keep an eye on the bulletin boards for notice of upcoming HQ/SWRO Local planning meetings!

Meeting July 23, re ES Series Changes

There will be a teleconference call about this topic on July 23 at Noon in Lacey,  Building Room 1s-16/17.

Contact Kerry Grabers for the teleconference phone number if you plan to participate.

Thank you!  Kerry

ES Series Changes

by Debbie Brookman, WFSE/AFSCME Labor Advocate

On 6/21/12, I sent out to all of you a notice from Ecology of their intent to make changes to the Environmental Specialist Series.

To date, none of you have responded with any concerns related to the proposed changes.

This is Ok but it seems a little odd to me, given all the discussion this issue has generated in the past.

So, I'm going to file a DTB today to ensure our time frames are preserved (7/5 is the deadline), just in case some of you forgot to get back to me.

If we truly have no issues with the proposed changes, I will withdraw the DTB.

Let me know your thoughts... if any... Thanks -Debbie  debbieb@wfse.org   800-562-6002

• Read the ES Series proposal here.

It's official! Our own Ecology Local is approved.

By Paul Pickett

Last fall a group of Ecology union members petitioned AFSCME for our own Local. Last month Ecology WFSE members got exciting news. We received a letter from AFSCME International President Gerald McEntee, who told us “the Department of Ecology request is granted.”

This is an historical event for our agency. With our own Local we’ll have more autonomy in the union, our own budget, the ability to choose our own delegates to WFSE committees and to conventions, and other direct and indirect benefits.

This is an important step, and now there’s lots of work to do. Over the next month we’ll work on fine-tuning the new Local Constitution, developing the structure of our new Local, and resolving other transition issues. Then later in the summer we will formally receive our Charter and hold elections for officers.

We need to determine our share of the reserves in Local 443. The result of this effort should be a healthy bank account balance when our Local starts up. A group of members are collecting data and developing a proposal.

There are several issues with the Constitution that need resolution:

• How many members constitute a quorum at a Local meeting?
• What Executive Committee officers will we have? How are they selected?
• How many Local meetings do we hold every year?
• How will elections be held?

We need to decide what Committees we’ll need to have in place to begin with, and find members to participate. Some committees we’ve discussed include:

• Finance Committee – support the treasurer and develop the Local budget
• Stewards Committee – support stewards training and problem resolution
• Grievance Committee – review grievances and recommend them for further action
• Communication Committee – communicate with members; manage the newsletter, website, email communications, mailings, etc.
• Political Action Committee – make endorsements for local elections
• Election Committee – a group trained in best election procedures to run our elections

In general, we’ll need to develop a set of policies that will be ready for adoption at our first official Local meeting, such as committees, standing rules for meetings, and other essential business functions. We want to start this new Local on the right foot, so we are spending some time thinking through how to organize policies to be useful, transparent, and effective.

Behind all this is the question: what are our values that we want to support and codify in our Constitution and policies?

We’ve had a lot of discussion about openness, inclusion, good communication, accountability, and responsibility to members. What do you care about? We need your input.

Please join us and be part of this new era! If you can’t make it but would like to help, please contact me, Elena Guilfoil, or any other steward. “Many hands make light work.” Pick a topic that interests you and decide how much time you have to offer – anything you can do will help!

Ecology Union Members--HELP PLAN THE NEW LOCAL!

Two special meetings are scheduled: Wednesdays, June 13 and June 27

Ecology Lacey building, Room R1D-16/17
Meetings start at 5:30 pm
Dinner is provided—Everyone is invited!

Ecology UMCC Report

Prepared by Jim Wavada, W2R-ERO and Dolores Mitchell, TCP-HQ

Union Members who participated in Ecology’s April 30th meeting of the statewide Union Management Communications Committee, and with union advocate Debbie Brookman, said the event at Headquarters had a new feel to it.

The principals had agreed at the earlier meeting to limit Agenda items to concerns and questions not covered by contract provisions.  Both groups brought guests to define or respond to specific items on the Agenda; nothing was tabled pending consultation with absent parties.  This gave the entire meeting a new, productive feel. The Director engaged in discussion of all the major items on the agenda.  He listened carefully and responded directly.

• SB 6211 the Brownfield Bill - Privatization/Contracting OutSenate Bill 6211, based on the Brownfield Recommendation purchased with public funds would privatize site-cleanup-oversight and regulation.  Executive Management invited TCP Program Manager Jim Pendowski to respond to economic, environmental, and ethical concerns we’d voiced about the bill—and to hear how we will react to re-introduction of the bill when the legislature reconvenes next January.
  
  UMCC Member Dolores Mitchell laid out our explicit concerns about the substance of the bill—and particularly the scheme that would delegate to “licensed site remediation professionals” (private sector contractors) authority to sign-off on the adequacy of independent site cleanups.  Members see the transfer of duties from Ecology’s expert and committed staff to profit-driven corporate contractors as a move away from public service and accountability.  Pendowski promised communications on this issue will be more transparent in future; he said meetings would be scheduled in all of the Regions.

• Field Staff On-The-Job Safety - Bargaining Unit member John Blacklaw described inadequacy and incongruence among current program-by-program or region-by-region Field Safety guidance and the Agency’s Safety Plan.  He observed a lack of definition and transparency in the relationship between the decision-making Safety Council –composed of paid Safety Coordinators— and Program volunteers on the various regional safety committees.
  
  Janet Hyre heard the concerns.  She explained the difference between the Agency’s “Safety Manual” and “Field Safety Guides” and Hyre pledged to work with an ad hoc group of bargaining unit members to resolve any redundancies and fill any gaps between the program safety plans and the agency safety plan.
  
  Blacklaw encouraged the agency to use the LEAN process (1) to identify and fill gaps in field safety manuals and processes, and (2) to coordinate and update the guidance, across agency programs and regional offices.  He pointed out that we also need to make staff trainings (based on those manuals) a priority.  Management agreed to work with Blacklaw on this project.  So now we have a joint project coming out of a UMCC meeting.  Everyone I talked to after the meeting sees this as a significant improvement in our shared understanding of the role of the UMCC.

• Layoff Notification Process - UMCC discussed the recent layoff notification practices and Members supposed it could be improved by letting employees know, even during the informal notification, about their contract rights as the process progresses.  Management rejected any role in giving employees union information; but did agree to advise potentially affected employees that they are at risk and to tell them where in their building a list of stewards can be found.
  
  HR conceded failure to provide regional area representatives with timely notification of proposed layoffs.  Amy Heller resolved to eliminate such notification delays in future, because employee must exercise some contract-rights within five days, in response to a formal notice.

• Facilitation Services - UMCC Member Jim Wavada again expressed members’ concerns about the routine practice of contracting out for facilitation services, despite investments of employee time and public dollars to train Ecology staff in facilitator skills.  He asked for a status report on the work of the Facilitation Ad Hoc group.  Executive Management acknowledged our interest and concern.

• Facility Use Protocols - UMCC Member Bob Penhale explained that policies seem inconsistent, between the Regional Offices and between the Regions and Headquarters with respect to events of common interest to Management and Employees.  Members believe some cooperative /co-sponsored events would benefit the whole agency.  UMCC Member Jim Wavada cited as an example, member interest in a presentation about the Blue-Green Coalition.  Management asked us to send a short list of such ideas.
  
  Altogether, this UMCC meeting seemed more focused on clear responses and cooperative solutions than previous meetings.  It doesn’t mean we don’t have to continue to be vigilant; but it does demonstrate that focusing on the “Communication” in the committee’s title may yield some long-term results.  Stay tuned!

Steward News

By Paul Pickett, Assistant Chief Steward

Layoffs – Stewards Respond

Ecology stewards and WFSE staff met last week to review the layoffs of April and May. We had filed a “Demand to Bargain” over the impacts of that layoff and wanted to prepare ourselves for negotiations. We also want to look ahead to further layoffs in June and July based on the final supplemental budget passed by the legislature this spring.

There were several impacts of the layoffs that we were concerned about:

• How do the layoffs affect workload, both for the employees left in the program where cuts occurred, and for the employees who bumped into new positions?
• How will staff placed in new positions receive training, mentoring, and other organizational support, so they are successful in their new position?
• Will staff who have “reasonable accommodations” for disabilities have their accommodations reviewed and updated to reflect new duties and work conditions?

We also identified several areas where we feel management fell short and that could be improved for the next round of layoffs:

• The union received notice of layoffs at the last minute and had to scramble to provide representation for staff being laid off. Employees were called into meetings on short notice, sometimes only a few hours, to be told they were being laid off, and then had only three days to provide updated and detailed resumes.
• Management could have provided more information up front about the layoffs, including the reasons for the layoffs. When requests for information were made, response was slow. We’d prefer prompt responses to our requests, rather than the appearance of “foot-dragging”.
• Negotiations weren’t scheduled until after layoffs and subsequent bumps were done. This defeats the intent of effectively negotiating impacts. Negotiations should be scheduled as soon as possible after the notice of layoffs.
• Management informed the union that no “Informal Options” would be offered. This is optional under the contract, but this position appears draconian and not helpful to employees being laid off.
• The union only had a seniority list that was over six months out of date, and did not include Veteran’s time, the layoff units, or part-time/full-time status. Therefore we had no clear idea what seniority criteria management was using for choosing Formal Options.
• Communication to employees could have been improved, especially about their representation rights, and about their options for finding a job in their old job class after a demotion.

Stewards will be part of on-going negotiations and discussions on these topics. Meanwhile, we are already working on the next round of cuts. If you have any questions – ask a steward!

WFSE/AFSCME Communicators Conference

By Jim Wavada and Dolores Mitchell

This year’s AFSCME/WFSE Communicators conference on April 20-21, 2012 at the SeaTac Hilton came at the conclusion of a brutal legislative session in Washington State. We saw the beginnings of a Wisconsin-style effort to “blame the public worker” for the Great Recession. 
The Tea Party Republicans were after our jobs and they made no secret of it.  We had to scramble and lobby our friends aggressively to preserve our basic rights to organize and to preserve our contract.  Thanks to some “confused” Senate Democrats, lovingly referred to as the “Roadkill Caucus,” it was a very close call. 

This conference was the perfect antidote to the post adjournment depression that had settled like a ground fog on many of us.  It showed weary survivors an effective way to fight back, reframe the issues, expose the villains, and show the public the real heroes that we all are. In short, it was great!

Blaine Rummel, AFSCME Associate Director of Communications, started off the training with a rousing presentation on the recent fight for Wisconsin, which continues with a hotly contested and expensive June recall election against Gov. Scott Walker and his legislative allies.  Blaine demonstrated how everyday union rank and file members can communicate our bigger message about collective bargaining rights more effectively than anyone else.

Here’s a clue—make it personal and understand the basic elements of a good story.  A mid-morning plenary session led by Deb Kidney and Korey Hartwich of AFSCME International taught us just how to do this.  Facilitators led groups in an exercise designed to demonstrate the power of personal stories.  Some were moved to tears by the heart-wrenching stories from the Council 28 members who stood between clients and catastrophe in so many cases. With effective storytelling, we help taxpayers and voters understand how our jobs help them to live better, safer lives.

The second day of the conference allowed participants to focus on one of two topics--working to be more effective public speakers or learning to use social media like Labor Web, Facebook and Twitter more effectively. Korey Hartwich led the training on effective public speaking and WFSE Council 28’s own Laura Reisdorf led hands-on computer lab training in the use of Facebook and Twitter. 

The training closed with a report on values-based communication and training on how to use the new Heroes Handbook v1 from communications consultant Ella Andrews.  This report and the handbook are the culmination of a year of research into how to effectively communicate our progressive values to voters and taxpayers.  Andrews walked us through using the basic elements of good story telling: a hero with tools, a villain with weapons, a threat to be countered and a quest that is noble.

This storytelling approach to communications comes out of hard science.  Cognitive research on the connection between neural activity in the brain and decision-making revealed that our amigdula (that small piece of the brain that generates our fight or flight reactions) generates most of our decision-making and helps us define about what we value most.  We then use our higher brain function in the cerebral cortex to gather and organize the factual data to support the decisions we’ve already made about how we feel about something.

In other words, the facts don’t matter if they don’t jive with the emotional attachment we have to an idea.  Appealing to the cerebral cortex, where we test and process facts, is a waste of time until you have successfully appealed to the amigdula, popularly referred to as our lizard brain. 
Conservative communications guru Frank Luntz, wrote Words That Work, based on this same research.  His handbook of the anti-government rhetoric has been used by antigovernment lobbies for a decade with a lot of success. Luntz learned that facts don’t matter, if you don’t first get people onboard the same emotional, values-driven train as you. Luntz realized that to change a person’s values system, you must first send a convincing message to their amigdula, often referred to as their “lizard brain—not their cerebral cortex. 

That’s the major insight inspiring the Hero’s Handbook we all received as part of this training.  The small handbook is chock full of survey-tested language for expressing values that union workers embody.  It lays out the basic elements of a hero/villain story and suggests how to put your story on the correct side of that line using carefully chosen words. Best of all, this incisive training regimen is going to be available to all union members.  WFSE Council 28 will be sponsoring a “train-the-trainer” session on the Hero’s Handbook in the near future.  Look for locally available versions of this training soon.

They could have named this year’s annual Communicators Conference the “Eye-popping, Totally Awesome, Finally We’re Going To Fight Back, What a Great Way to Tell Your Story” Conference.  But that would violate most of what we learned that weekend in SeaTac. Instead, we’ll just make a note that it was one of the better organized and effective trainings that WFSE Council 28 and AFSCME have ever offered, and that more is coming.

2013-2015 Bargaining Update

The Federation’s General Government Bargaining Team has reached tentative agreement on more than half of the next contract after just three days of bargaining. By doing this, the united and ready Federation bargaining team freed up more time for summer negotiations on more complicated articles, including compensation. Visit WFSE.org > Bargaining > General Government for more information!

Attend Lunch & Learn on May 22

An information sharing event with members of the Lacey City Council: Mayor Virgil Clarkson, Cynthia Pratt, and Andy Ryder.

What’s on your mind?

• Martin Way crosswalk?
• Bike paths?
• Growth and Development?

 Join us! All are welcome!

Tuesday, May 22
Noon to 1 PM
Ecology HQ Library (3rd Floor)

 Snacks will be provided.

HQ-MEL Communication Committee Starts Work

by Mariann Cook Andrews 

Union members with concerns that are not covered under the contract can now contact members of their local Union Management Communication Committee for assistance. The Headquarters and Manchester Environmental Laboratory (HQ-MEL) committee formed in February and can now help Ecology employees in those offices.

The Washington Federation of State Employees bargained for and won a clause in the contract to establish regional and headquarters communication committees at Ecology. Several other agencies have similar systems.

Our Mission Statement

We are the Union part of your Ecology Headquarters-Manchester Environmental Laboratory Union Management Communications Committee. We are here to collect HQ & MEL employees’ concerns, and bring them to management. We provide a system for giving and receiving ideas on matters that affect your ability to do your job.

The committee will handle concerns such as:

• Building closures
• Building Access       
• Workplace health and safety
• Loud hand dryers
• Parking
• Rodents
• Pets

The committee will refer concerns that come under the union contract to the bargaining committee, shop stewards, or other groups if appropriate.

The group has already worked on one employee’s concern about paid vs. unpaid parking in the Lacey building’s parking garage.

HQ-MEL Committee members:

• Barb Anderson, HQ-Water Resources
• Dustin Bilhimer, HQ-Water Quality
• Elena Guilfoil, HQ-Air Quality
• Dolores Mitchell, HQ-Toxics Cleanup (Dolores also serves on the statewide Union Management Communication Committee)
• Mariann Cook Andrews, HQ-Hazardous Waste & Toxics Reduction

Union members in the two offices elected the committee members for the duration of the contract.

Below are members of the other regional UMCC committees:

• CRO: Committee is still being formed—Contact a steward if you would like to be a member!
  ERO: Shara-Li Joy, Marcie Mangold, Phil Leinart, and Scott Mallery
  NWRO: Committee is still being formed—Contact a steward if you would like to be a member!
  SWRO: Pat Bailey, Robin Munroe, Tom Middleton, Bob Troyer, and Lydia Wagner.

Survey of Members Shows Support for Ecology Local

By Paul Pickett

Last autumn, a group of Ecology employees petitioned the President of AFSCME to create a new Local for Ecology Bargaining Unit members in Thurston County. The petition is under review and we are still awaiting a decision.

As part of preparing ourselves for self-governance, we wanted to find out more about how employees viewed the Local, if it would increase their involvement, and if they needed more information.

We now have 52 responses to that survey!

Question 1:

Almost two-thirds of employees (65%) told us that if an Ecology agency-based local were created, their level of support and activity would stay the same. Another one-quarter said that it would encourage them to be more active and they’d be more likely to volunteer. Only two employees said that they would be less involved. This is a very positive result – it tells us that we are likely to see more activism, and in any case it can do little harm.

Question 2:

Over half the employees (56%) told us they understood the issues, didn’t care, or didn’t need more information about changing to an Ecology agency-based local. This is also a positive message, because it tells us that our newsletter articles and other information have been reaching staff. However, almost a third of employees want more information. This tells us that we need to continue communicating about the local proposal and its implications.    

We will be working on several ways to respond to the need for more information. The newsletter articles will be posted on the Ecology Bargaining Unit blog and we will work harder to distribute the blog address (http://wfsec28-ecology.blogspot.com/).

We are starting up monthly meetings of the “proto-local” open to all members of WFSE who work in the Lacey building. We will also be exploring other ways to communicate, such as better use of bulletin boards in the building. We welcome your ideas for getting information to our members.

Lastly we were very happy to provide the prize drawing of a $50 gift card to Hannah Aoyagi! Thanks to everyone who responded to the survey. It will help us build a better and stronger employee organization at Ecology.

Stewards News

By Paul Pickett

Layoffs

April was a tough month for stewards. Six employees at HQ and SWRO in the Spills and HWTR programs were laid off. One of them turned down their “formal option” (the job they were offered) and left the agency. The other five took their options. Unfortunately, many of the options represented a demotion and all were jobs held by another employee (i.e. a “bump”). That resulted in another 5 employees laid off and offered options. We are not sure how that all turned out, except it appears that at least 4 landed in vacant positions, although once again taking demotions.

Nobody is happy about layoffs, and many people are frustrated with the seniority system and the use of “bumps” that favor senior employees. However, keep in mind a few things:

• The system is intended to reward longevity in state service. Without seniority, highly paid senior employees could be the first laid off, as often happens in the private sector. 

• The system is also intended to discourage favoritism. We don’t want a “family and friends” system where managers can purge employees or prevent them from filling positions just because they don’t “fit in”. Many employees ask why we can’t have a “merit-based” system to decide on who gets laid off. Unfortunately, although it sounds like a nice idea, experience has shown that such a system is commonly abused. 

• The seniority system is very “mechanical”. The employee laid off is offered a vacant position first (if available), then a position in the same job class with the least seniority (again, if available), and then other options if available. It is supposed to have nothing to do with who is in the position. Although it’s a lousy situation and no one is happy, it isn’t personal.

• Finally, the layoffs all started with decisions made by management. They made decisions to offer up cuts in certain parts of the agency based on priorities they set. The governor accepted those cuts and the legislature included them in the budget. If layoffs, seniority, and bumps make you angry, I suggest you direct your anger to a Governor and legislature who refuse to consider closing tax loopholes or raising user fees instead of cutting vital programs.

Demands to Bargain

• In April the agency issued a new parking plan for the HQ/SWRO building. It includes a proposal to tow employees cars if they are caught three times parking in the wrong spot. Employees are unhappy with the plan, and based on the advice of union members, the union has demanded to bargain over this issue. 

• We have also demanded to bargain over the impact on working conditions from the layoffs described above. We can’t stop a layoff, but we can address issues like training, workload, and reasonable accommodation.

• Bargaining dates for these DTB’s have not been set at the time of publication. If you have any comments or questions, please contact a UMCC member or steward.

2013-2015 Contract—Bargaining Update

Members of the 2013-2015 Bargaining Team recently completed a series of meetings to review and discuss the contract proposals that were submitted to WFSE late last fall. Bargaining at the table between the union and management begins in early May.  Events will be planned throughout the spring and summer to support our bargaining team—keep an eye on the union boards for more information.

Find updates on WFSE.org > Bargaining Center > General Government Bargaining Team news and information. 

Environmental Specialist Classification Review—Article Update

Over the past few months Ecology has been working with the Office of the State Human Resource Director (OSHRD), formerly the Department of Personnel, to review and update the Environmental Specialist classification. A draft agenda for the May 10 State    HR Directors meeting does not include the ES Classification Review. When the review is eventually scheduled for discussion at an HR Directors meeting,  a public comment period will open—this is your opportunity to be heard.  We’ll keep you posted as more information is available.

Read related article here.

Environmental Specialist Classification Review Project

- by Jessica A. Moore

Over the past few months Ecology has been working with the Office of the State Human Resource Director (OSHRD), formerly the Department of Personnel, to review and update the Environmental Specialist classification. The series as a whole was last revised and retitled in 1994 and in 1996 the minimum qualifications for an ES5 were revised.

According to the Ecology’s Human Resource Office (HRO), “the purpose of the review project is to better define, describe and distinguish each of the five levels in the Environmental Specialist classification series for purposes of aiding in classification allocation.  Specifically, this means we are updating and modifying the content of the classification specifications for each of the five Environmental Specialist classifications.”

Also HRO states that “the review project is not for reviewing the classification allocation of individual positions or to address compensation issues.  Compensation for any classification covered under the collective bargaining agreement is addressed through the collective bargaining process.”

The review process has primarily involved HRO and the Classification Review Unit (Review Team) staff at OSHRD. The process has included a review of ES class specifications, review of ES position descriptions at Ecology, interviews with program managers, and a limited number of desk audits. These reviews led the Review Team to propose a set of draft recommendations to HRO and EMT.
HRO and EMT provided comments to the Review Team, including the idea of a new classification, Environmental Scientist.  The Review Team has moved forward with finalizing the draft changes to the ES classification specifications.  These changes include revised definitions, “distinguishing characteristics” for all five classifications, and the removal of the manager’s expert designation form for ES 4 and 5.

The proposal for a new classification has been put on hold for the future. So what’s next? 

The final revised specifications need to be okayed by the State HR Director to be placed on the next quarterly State HR Director’s meeting agenda for final approval, currently scheduled for May 10th.

Once the agenda for the meeting is set, a public comment period will be opened before the May meeting.  Commenting on the proposed revised specifications is very important—it is the primary way to get your voice heard on these changes!

The final details are not available for review yet, but Chris Parsons has put together a slideshow on the HRO Intranet site that has some general information about the process and proposed revisions to the ES series.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact a Shop Steward in your office. We may not have all the answers right away, but we will keep you in the loop and make sure your questions and concerns are heard during the public comment period.

Keep your eyes and ears open…there will be more information coming your way in the near future! ▪

Demands to bargain and furlough grievance update

– Debbie Brookman, Labor Advocate, WFSE Staff

Below is a quick update on the status of the various demands to bargain and furlough grievances.    

1. Contracting Out - Watershed Health Monitoring/EAP   This is a $550,000.00 contract to conduct extensive field monitoring/sampling in the Upper Columbia River and NE Salmon Recovery Regions. Negotiations were held on January 17, 2012.  

2. New Administrative Policy for Shared Leave   Ecology has proposed a new policy to address how shared leave requests and usage are implemented. Issues include some arbitrary time frames being attached to requests/usage. Negotiations were held on January 20, 2012.  

3. Dam Safety - Change in Inspection Process   Dam Safety is piloting the use of a surveying tool that allows inspections to be conducted by one person. Current practice is to send 2 employees for all/most dam inspections. We have some safety concerns that need to be addressed. Negotiations were held on January 27, 2012. 

4. Fleet Management Consolidation   Like many other large agencies, Ecology is consolidating management of their state vehicle fleet into the new Department of Enterprise Services (formally known as General Administration). The issues raised include ensuring that employees continue to have reasonable access to vehicles, application to special use vehicles, and reimbursement for snow chain installation/removal, etc. Negotiations were held on January 30, 2012.  

5. Furlough Grievances - Update on Part-Time employees who were reduced to less than 20-hours during TLO weeks     This case was filed on behalf of part-time Ecology employees whose work schedules were reduced to less than 20-hours as a result of the furloughs. This case has been consolidated into several other grievances filed in DSHS and the Department of Health. This case has gone to hearing. Closing 
briefs were turned in on January 6, 2012. A decision from the arbitrator should be available in 30-45 days.

Questions about this grievance should be directed to Sherri Ann Burke, Labor Advocate, at WFSE headquarters.

Questions on the demands to bargain can be directed to Debbie at 360-352-7603 or 800-562-6002. ■