Image provided by: SEIU Local 503; Salem, OR
About The OSEA news. (Salem, Oregon) 1970-1981 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 1, 1981)
e OSEA News Page 7 February 1981 Members 'We will not modify our bargaining units' Negotiations between the State of Oregon and OSEA are bogged down by the state’s continued efforts to deny OSEA members the final say in the negotiation of their contracts. / £■ a ® <5 .S?r *® ¿£-í’ ------------------- \ Coalition Teams __________________________ ;#£• **£«*A* BARGAINING At issue is whether or not state employes will ratify their contracts by agency, rather than as one large coalition. The stakes are high. When the 1979 Legislature passed S B. 57, the rules for contract negotiations changed. Now all agency contracts must be renegotiated a t the same time as the central agreement. The state wants all agency contracts to be ratified by a central coalition. The sheer magnitude of this negotiating load would make it impossible to deal with all issues of concern a t the agency levels. The end result of such a ground rule is simple. Em ployes a t each agency will not have the right to reject their contract if it does not meet then- needs. The s ta te ’s negotiating strength would be considerably enhanced by such a position. Needs of employes a t the agency level could be traded off against issues effecting all OSEA employes in the central contract. Labor Relations Agencies “The point here is that the state is meddling in the internal affairs of OSEA,” says Alice Dale, OSEA’s chief spokes person for the state contract. “A union has the right to ratify a contract according to its own rules. We have always taken the stand that our negotiations will be by a democratic process. Manage- Fact Finding News on negotiations Information about the negotiating process will be changing with increasing rapidity as the bargaining process continues. OSEA staff will provide you with regular coverage of the negotiations in two formats, The OSEA News and a negotiating newsletter. The OSEA News will provide you with monthly overviews of what is happening in and out of the negotiating sessions, along with analysis of positions taken by the state and OSEA. The negotiating newsletter will give you the most up to date information possible on negotiations at the central, coalition and agency levels of bargaining. You will find this newsletter a t your workplace, or you can ask your shop steward for a copy, whenever news breaks. ment is just trying to squeeze a little more out of state em ployes.” The OSEA bargaining team met with state negotiators over this issue on Jan. 29, which was after press time. Prior to the meeting, management gave no indication of what its position would be. “We will not modify our bargaining units under any circumstances,” said Thomas Gallagher, OSEA executive director, before the Jan. 29 meeting. “It has taken 'a long time to deal with this one issue that is an internal union m atter. “ If the state does not recognize our right to ratify by bargaining unit this week, we will be forced to go to 46 separate agency negotiations on the central contract.” Once the state recognizes OSEA’s right to establish its own rules for ratification, all ground rules for proceeding into formal negotiations will be in place. If the state does not force bargaining into se p a ra te agency negotiations, a three- tier system will go into effect. Issues will be placed before a central table, one of five coalition tables or any of 46 agency tables. At the central table bar gaining will include nearly all salary, fringe benefit and classification issues, plus all other Issues not negotiated at the coalition or agency tables. At least one representative from each of the coalition tables will sit at the central table. Each of the five coalitions will encompass a group of agencies with similar needs or needs that are easily grouped together for negotiating. They will negotiate all issues currently in agency contracts; all issues that are sent to them by m utual agreement of the central table and a yet-to-be determined number of issues that either OSEA or the s ta te can unilaterally pass from the central table to the coalition level. This latter number of issues will probably be 10 to 12 issues per side. Each agency negotiating table will discuss issues that are germane to it that cannot be resolved a t coalition tables. These negotiating tables will then give th e ir recom mendation on each issue that is passed to them for final passage at the coalition level. Employe pay for time spent in negotiations was another avenue where management tried to limit participation by state employes in the bargain ing process. Under the current contract, six employes are allowed comp time a t the central table. But the state balked when OSEA proposed that one member from each agency receive comp time a t the coalition level, since agency contracts would be negotiated a t these tables. Instead, m anagem ent con tended these employes could receive comp time only as their agency contracts came due. This would have seriously effected employe represen tation a t' the OSEA coalition tables. However, after some negotiating the state agreed to give comp time to one person at the coalition level from each agency bargaining unit. “ The negotiating ground rules our bargaining team has hammered out are crucial for our employes,” said Thomas Gallagher, OSEA executive director. “The employes of the State of Oregon have had collective bargaining, but now they are demanding their right for the next step in the bargaining process — more participation.” Ratification CONTRACT
