The Union Management Communications Committee (UMCC) convened with representatives of the management team after seating several newly elected members. Tied headquarters representatives Charles San Juan and Kurt Unger graciously attended together with the understanding that the run-off election will be conducted to decide the tie.
Other unfilled positions were occupied by volunteers who were asked to serve as voices for their respective offices.
Also present for the meeting, all or in part, were Sally Lawrence from NWRO, Kathy Conaway and Alisa Huckaby from RFO, and Kerry Graber for SWRO. Polly Zehm, Chris Parsons, Amy Heller, Pat McLain, and Gary “Mace” Maciejewski (IT) were there representing the management team.
Inclement Weather Policy – Polly let us know that they would not be changing the policy, but had changed the decision making criteria to include more safety considerations. The new criteria will be posted on Inside Ecology.
Natural Resource Reform – Polly will be meeting with the Natural Resource Reform Cabinet on November 13 to formulate recommendations to the Governor. Polly said they are still looking at employee input. While there appears to be little enthusiasm for the most drastic option of consolidating into one giant agency, it is also not acceptable to the Governor to get a “no action” recommendation. She shared that much of this effort may get overshadowed by budget problems.
Printer Management – Members wanted assurance that the new print management software would not be used as a source for “going after” employees. Gary “Mace” Maciejewski clarified that efforts to reduce printing stems from a legislatively adopted - “paper conservation act” – climate-related goal to reduce paper use by 30% for state government. The goal deadline to achieve reduction is July 1, 2010. To meet this challenge Gary found software that provides the costs of print jobs. When you push “print” a bubble will pop up giving you the cost of the previous print job and asking whether you are sure you have to print this one. In the future they hope the software will estimate the cost of the print job you are about to send to the printer. Gary said this focus on awareness and the ability to catch errors in print decisions (oops, you didn’t mean to ask for the whole document for example), may go a long way toward meeting the required goal. Each individual will be able to look up a summary of how much they printed. (No one else, other than the administrator of the system, will be able to do this.)
We briefly discussed the status of efforts to move toward electronic record keeping. Polly said plans to buy software for electronic archiving are on hold due to budget difficulties.
WMS and Management Reductions – Polly was asked whether there had been further thought about reducing the number of managers at Ecology and increasing the minimum “span-of-control” numbers to flatten the organization. Polly said that she is continuing to look at reductions where they make sense, and urging program managers to look at this before they fill positions. A reorganization and reduction in one manager at the Richland office was pointed to as an example of this. Polly committed to looking at taking cuts in management “commensurate with staff cuts.” Other than this, a broader or systemic look is not being conducted. Polly believes the issue is getting attention with talks between the Federation (WFSE) and Department of Personnel (DOP). Chris Parsons shared that from research he found the private sector has made significant movement toward flatter organizational structures.
We continue to urge Ecology to look at the WMS band 2 level and evaluate what the agency really needs. Chris said he would be doing a profile of WMS 2 managers, and acknowledged he had committed to provide that to the budget team. He said that DOP is considering two categories within WMS, one for managing people and one for advisors.
Kerry Graber explained that members have expressed concern about program budget planners being in WMS. By placing them in WMS the potential exists for being ethically compromised. This idea was flatly rejected by Pat. Chris was quick to point out that WMS are protected by the civil service rules. The subject was dropped for now.
Budget Ad-hoc Report – Pat shared that she has been putting together a “budget 101” presentation using the budget questions posed by the committee. January is being considered for rolling this out to the rest of the agency. This might be timely with the legislative session starting. The supplemental budget has been posted on Inside Ecology. We reviewed with Pat some of the information she provided during the recent All-Staff meeting. Pat said a list of activities funded by general fund – the mandatory list – is the next deliverable to OFM.
Kurt asked why not move the Water Resources Program to a fee-based system, with an annual assessment. Washington needs to place a value on water it gives away for free. A database would have to be developed in short order. We discussed recent successful efforts by Oregon and California to shift to a fee-based system. Pat said that although this would alleviate the Water Resources Program’s reliance on the General Fund, it is only 380 million in relation to an over 1 billion budget deficit. A more serious discussion about this will likely occur in the 2011/13 biennium. Although Jay Manning has talked about a fee publicly this is a tough political environment to try to get something passed. Legislators are averse to any new revenue legislation.
Timesheet Processing – Amy Heller reported that talks have been held with IT staff on developing an interface program that would allow employees to directly enter their timesheet information and eliminate double logging. They are also looking at off-the-shelf technology. A decision on which way to go will be made in the next five weeks.
Overtime Eligibility – In anticipation of a U.S. Department of Labor audit, the agency will be reviewing previous determinations on overtime eligibility on a position-by-position basis. Amy said HR is anticipating some reversals from exempt to eligible. The evaluation primarily looks at salary level and job duties. There will be a formal notice to the union when this evaluation is complete.
Environmental Specialist Series – Chris Parsons was asked whether there has been any further work on quantifying recruitment and retention problems due to the low salaries of this series. Chris said they have put a system in place to follow up with employees who leave Ecology to help HR quantify retention problems and build some data. Chris said the agency is still supportive of efforts to gain high-cost compensation, not limited by job class, for the Bellevue office. Members will be renewing this request through the contract proposal process in hopes that compensation will be honored by the Governor and legislature in the next CBA.
Summary – The UMCC meets a minimum of three times per year under the CBA. This UMCC hopes to pursue a more frequent meeting schedule particularly as we face another tough legislative session and more budget crises. Please talk to your UMCC representative about your issues and concerns. ■
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Budget Team’s Impact On Lay-off Subtle but Tangible
– By Kerry Graber
A team of five member volunteers have been meeting informally with members of the management team to exchange information and explore options to lay-offs. A smaller subgroup of three then negotiated with the Governor’s labor relations team to mitigate impacts. Their work is nearly done now that this lay-off cycle is complete.
Members of the budget team include Scott Mallery, Tryg Hoff, Tammy Hall, Helen Pressley, and Charles San Juan.
------------------------------------------------------------
The budget team’s efforts are nearly complete after holding a number of informal talks with the goal of sharing ideas and advancing the ideas of employees for mitigating lay-offs from the recent budget cuts.
Negotiated Accomplishments - Reflecting on how the reduction-in-force (RIF) unfolded, the team agreed that we could take credit for a number of accomplishments, including:
Unanswered Questions - The budget team is still seeking answers to remaining questions that were raised during informal talks, including:
The team is concerned about getting a clearer sense of direction from Polly and possibly the new director on just how employees prioritize their work and “do less with less.” Most people are going through their work plans during evaluation time and having these kinds of discussions with their supervisors. However, the team feels that clearer direction and leadership is needed from the top to help employees and supervisors in the midst of making some tough decisions. In the absence of clear direction this process is made more stressful for everyone involved.
The team expects to discuss the outstanding questions and the lingering workload issues at an additional informal meeting. The team expects that a “budget 101” session will also be scheduled, and possibly expanded to the rest of the agency.
More Budget Reductions Likely - There is an expectation that more budget reductions and possibly lay-offs are in our future, however it is important to complete the process on this first round and close-out the bargaining before opening a new negotiation. We anticipate Ecology will notify us as soon as they know whether another round of lay-offs will be necessary. We are hoping to continue the trend of open and frequent talks with decision makers as they craft another set of cuts. ■
A team of five member volunteers have been meeting informally with members of the management team to exchange information and explore options to lay-offs. A smaller subgroup of three then negotiated with the Governor’s labor relations team to mitigate impacts. Their work is nearly done now that this lay-off cycle is complete.
Members of the budget team include Scott Mallery, Tryg Hoff, Tammy Hall, Helen Pressley, and Charles San Juan.
------------------------------------------------------------
The budget team’s efforts are nearly complete after holding a number of informal talks with the goal of sharing ideas and advancing the ideas of employees for mitigating lay-offs from the recent budget cuts.
Negotiated Accomplishments - Reflecting on how the reduction-in-force (RIF) unfolded, the team agreed that we could take credit for a number of accomplishments, including:
- An agreement to slightly modify the collective bargaining agreement (contract) procedure for the benefit of members identified for lay-off
- A more objective and fair process as a result of the team’s advocacy
- As a result of the engagement with management more effort was made to find places for RIF’d folks
- Without the additional time to talk to management and the expanded process many of these improvements would not have been discussed.
Unanswered Questions - The budget team is still seeking answers to remaining questions that were raised during informal talks, including:
- What are the functions of WMS 2 section managers within the agency?
- Why did the Water Quality Program take the TMDL program supervisors from Natural Resource Specialist 5s to WMS 1s?
- Why is Ecology’s percentage of managers the highest among natural resource agencies? (See table next page – OFM website source data.)
- Will Ecology roll out a “budget 101” to clearly explain to employees where the money goes, and why?
- Why did it take so long for Program Managers to provide the number of vacant, funded positions to Polly when she asked for it? Why isn’t this information readily available?
The team is concerned about getting a clearer sense of direction from Polly and possibly the new director on just how employees prioritize their work and “do less with less.” Most people are going through their work plans during evaluation time and having these kinds of discussions with their supervisors. However, the team feels that clearer direction and leadership is needed from the top to help employees and supervisors in the midst of making some tough decisions. In the absence of clear direction this process is made more stressful for everyone involved.
The team expects to discuss the outstanding questions and the lingering workload issues at an additional informal meeting. The team expects that a “budget 101” session will also be scheduled, and possibly expanded to the rest of the agency.
More Budget Reductions Likely - There is an expectation that more budget reductions and possibly lay-offs are in our future, however it is important to complete the process on this first round and close-out the bargaining before opening a new negotiation. We anticipate Ecology will notify us as soon as they know whether another round of lay-offs will be necessary. We are hoping to continue the trend of open and frequent talks with decision makers as they craft another set of cuts. ■
Negotiations Over Internal Policies Yield Results
– By Alisa Huckaby
Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Article 38 (Mandatory Subjects), WFSE requested negotiations (“demand to bargain”) for proposed new policies and revision of existing policies. The negotiations occurred on September 18.
Attending the negotiations representing Ecology CBA members were: Debbie Brookman (Washington Federation of State Employees), Pete Kmet (HQ), Norm Peck (Central Regional Office), and Alisa Huckaby (Richland Field Office).
Policy 11-10 (Operating Ecology Vehicles): WITHDRAWN - The negotiating team requested that if/when policies referenced directives, and those directives were changed (such as the requirement to fill the gas tank every time you use a vehicle), that those directives be considered part of the policy revision and therefore negotiated with the bargaining unit. The negotiating team identified many directive requirements that were not feasible for safety and cost reasons. Ecology management agreed to not implement this proposed policy/directive revision and will provide a new policy/directive revision notification to the union.
Policy 1-50 (Layoff): WITHDRAWN. Ecology management withdrew the language that included represented employees under this policy. Given this agreement, the new policy would have no impact on our members (i.e., represented employees will follow the CBA when layoffs are implemented).
Policy 1-28 (Security Program): AMENDED AT OUR REQUEST. The revised policy requires members to turn in identification and access badges during “extended absences.” Ecology management provided explanation and application of “extended absence.” “Extended absence” is intended to mean an approved leave without pay (e.g., leaving the country for several months or on home assignment due to investigation). Furthermore, “extended absence” is not intended to be applied when someone is on leave under the Family Medical Leave Act or on maternity/paternity leave. Ecology management explained they will consider a member’s “extended absence” on a case-by-case basis. If Ecology managers apply “extended absence” requirements in an abusive or harassing manner, Human Resources will work with the union to resolve it. Agreement was reached on the “extended absence” term and its intended application for this policy.
Policy 5-54 (Training): AMENDED AT OUR REQUEST. The negotiating team expressed concern with the frequency (i.e., too repetitive for value) of some of the required trainings. In addition, concern was expressed about some manager’s interpretations of “highly recommended” or “recommended” as “required.” The negotiating team promoted consideration of training costs and impacts to employees’ ability to get work done when managers send employees to repetitive or unnecessary training sessions. Ecology management agreed the policy’s training matrix could be clarified (e.g., “highly recommended” areas that are blank will be removed from the matrix). Ecology management also explained that all training costs are being evaluated as this was a commitment made during the Layoff negotiations. An example of a training improvement is the shorter version of the Ethics training (2 versus 4 hours). Ecology management anticipated revision and updates to the training policy within the next 6 months. Agreement was reached to have on-going discussion about training issues via the Union Management Communications Committee (UMCC) meetings.
Policy 1-32 (Preventing Conflicts of Interest Based on Familial or Personal Relationships): The negotiating team provided a red-line/strike-out version of the proposed new policy and explained the edited version was an attempt to incorporate criteria communicated by Jay Manning in an email to Ecology managers. Note: the red-line/strike-out language of the draft policy would only apply to Ecology managers, would not allow employees with familial relations with the Program Manager to work in the same program, and would require management’s disclosure of familial relationships to Ecology Human Resources. The negotiating team explained that the draft policy did not appear to address the original audit findings that it was intended to address and that Ecology member’s fundamental issue is fairness in the workplace. The negotiating team expressed concern that the draft policy only addresses the supervisor/employee relationship and not the relationship between the line employee and the Program Manager. Agreement was reached that the policy should not prevent family members from being hired into the agency. The negotiating team communicated the sensitivity associated with existing familial relationships in the work place and the belief that the policy provided a mechanism for appropriate exceptions via the Director’s discretion and documentation. After much discussion, the negotiating team was amenable to “grandfathering” in of existing situations (including disclosure) with clear restrictions on future hiring. Ecology management were unable to agree to the negotiating team’s proposal without first discussing the proposed changes to the draft policy with Ecology’s Executive Management Team.
Policy 11-17 (Reserving and Using Ecology Facilities): INTERPRETATION CLARIFIED. The negotiating team requested clarification of the policy regarding the union’s right to use Ecology Headquarter building facilities. Ecology management explained that the revised policy is not intended to restrict the Union from use of rooms (other than the auditorium). Amy Heller further explained that it is permissible for the Union to use Ecology Headquarter conference rooms S-16 & S-17 near the cafeteria.
Policy 1-76 (Suspending Operations): UNDER FURTHER CONSIDERATION. The negotiating team provided a red-line/strike-out version of the revised policy. However, the Labor Relations Office’s representative stated his opinion that this negotiation session could only “bargain” over the items in the policy that have been changed. Although the negotiating team did not have the benefit of knowing the proposed revisions of the policy (due to a red-line/strike-out version not having been provided by Ecology management), the proposed changes to this policy were minimal and included the deletion of a paragraph referencing Policy 1-75 (leave policy that wasn’t finalized) and minor clean-up changes. Because the major revisions to this policy are still under development (by Ecology’s Carol Fleskes), the Ecology negotiating team agreed to hold off on negotiation of revisions to this policy until the significantly revised policy is available. The Ecology negotiating team requested that Carol Fleskes be provided our red-line/strike-out version of the policy for her consideration as she revises the existing policy.
UPDATE: In the recent UMCC meeting Polly Zehm said she would be leaving Policy 1-76 as is, but would broaden her decision making criteria for building closure. She agreed to have this new criteria posted in Inside Ecology so that everyone can read it. Significant movement was made on this issue. Thank you to the membership for making your views known about last winter’s experience! ■
Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Article 38 (Mandatory Subjects), WFSE requested negotiations (“demand to bargain”) for proposed new policies and revision of existing policies. The negotiations occurred on September 18.
Attending the negotiations representing Ecology CBA members were: Debbie Brookman (Washington Federation of State Employees), Pete Kmet (HQ), Norm Peck (Central Regional Office), and Alisa Huckaby (Richland Field Office).
Policy 11-10 (Operating Ecology Vehicles): WITHDRAWN - The negotiating team requested that if/when policies referenced directives, and those directives were changed (such as the requirement to fill the gas tank every time you use a vehicle), that those directives be considered part of the policy revision and therefore negotiated with the bargaining unit. The negotiating team identified many directive requirements that were not feasible for safety and cost reasons. Ecology management agreed to not implement this proposed policy/directive revision and will provide a new policy/directive revision notification to the union.
Policy 1-50 (Layoff): WITHDRAWN. Ecology management withdrew the language that included represented employees under this policy. Given this agreement, the new policy would have no impact on our members (i.e., represented employees will follow the CBA when layoffs are implemented).
Policy 1-28 (Security Program): AMENDED AT OUR REQUEST. The revised policy requires members to turn in identification and access badges during “extended absences.” Ecology management provided explanation and application of “extended absence.” “Extended absence” is intended to mean an approved leave without pay (e.g., leaving the country for several months or on home assignment due to investigation). Furthermore, “extended absence” is not intended to be applied when someone is on leave under the Family Medical Leave Act or on maternity/paternity leave. Ecology management explained they will consider a member’s “extended absence” on a case-by-case basis. If Ecology managers apply “extended absence” requirements in an abusive or harassing manner, Human Resources will work with the union to resolve it. Agreement was reached on the “extended absence” term and its intended application for this policy.
Policy 5-54 (Training): AMENDED AT OUR REQUEST. The negotiating team expressed concern with the frequency (i.e., too repetitive for value) of some of the required trainings. In addition, concern was expressed about some manager’s interpretations of “highly recommended” or “recommended” as “required.” The negotiating team promoted consideration of training costs and impacts to employees’ ability to get work done when managers send employees to repetitive or unnecessary training sessions. Ecology management agreed the policy’s training matrix could be clarified (e.g., “highly recommended” areas that are blank will be removed from the matrix). Ecology management also explained that all training costs are being evaluated as this was a commitment made during the Layoff negotiations. An example of a training improvement is the shorter version of the Ethics training (2 versus 4 hours). Ecology management anticipated revision and updates to the training policy within the next 6 months. Agreement was reached to have on-going discussion about training issues via the Union Management Communications Committee (UMCC) meetings.
Policy 1-32 (Preventing Conflicts of Interest Based on Familial or Personal Relationships): The negotiating team provided a red-line/strike-out version of the proposed new policy and explained the edited version was an attempt to incorporate criteria communicated by Jay Manning in an email to Ecology managers. Note: the red-line/strike-out language of the draft policy would only apply to Ecology managers, would not allow employees with familial relations with the Program Manager to work in the same program, and would require management’s disclosure of familial relationships to Ecology Human Resources. The negotiating team explained that the draft policy did not appear to address the original audit findings that it was intended to address and that Ecology member’s fundamental issue is fairness in the workplace. The negotiating team expressed concern that the draft policy only addresses the supervisor/employee relationship and not the relationship between the line employee and the Program Manager. Agreement was reached that the policy should not prevent family members from being hired into the agency. The negotiating team communicated the sensitivity associated with existing familial relationships in the work place and the belief that the policy provided a mechanism for appropriate exceptions via the Director’s discretion and documentation. After much discussion, the negotiating team was amenable to “grandfathering” in of existing situations (including disclosure) with clear restrictions on future hiring. Ecology management were unable to agree to the negotiating team’s proposal without first discussing the proposed changes to the draft policy with Ecology’s Executive Management Team.
Policy 11-17 (Reserving and Using Ecology Facilities): INTERPRETATION CLARIFIED. The negotiating team requested clarification of the policy regarding the union’s right to use Ecology Headquarter building facilities. Ecology management explained that the revised policy is not intended to restrict the Union from use of rooms (other than the auditorium). Amy Heller further explained that it is permissible for the Union to use Ecology Headquarter conference rooms S-16 & S-17 near the cafeteria.
Policy 1-76 (Suspending Operations): UNDER FURTHER CONSIDERATION. The negotiating team provided a red-line/strike-out version of the revised policy. However, the Labor Relations Office’s representative stated his opinion that this negotiation session could only “bargain” over the items in the policy that have been changed. Although the negotiating team did not have the benefit of knowing the proposed revisions of the policy (due to a red-line/strike-out version not having been provided by Ecology management), the proposed changes to this policy were minimal and included the deletion of a paragraph referencing Policy 1-75 (leave policy that wasn’t finalized) and minor clean-up changes. Because the major revisions to this policy are still under development (by Ecology’s Carol Fleskes), the Ecology negotiating team agreed to hold off on negotiation of revisions to this policy until the significantly revised policy is available. The Ecology negotiating team requested that Carol Fleskes be provided our red-line/strike-out version of the policy for her consideration as she revises the existing policy.
UPDATE: In the recent UMCC meeting Polly Zehm said she would be leaving Policy 1-76 as is, but would broaden her decision making criteria for building closure. She agreed to have this new criteria posted in Inside Ecology so that everyone can read it. Significant movement was made on this issue. Thank you to the membership for making your views known about last winter’s experience! ■
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)