Image provided by: SEIU Local 503; Salem, OR
About The Oregon public employe. (Salem, Oregon) 1981-???? | View Entire Issue (April 1, 1981)
VOLUME XXIV, No. 3 APRIL 1981 H P U B L IC EM PLOYE A publication of the Oregon Public Employes Union In negotiations State trying to cut benefits State negotiators at the central and coalition tables have taken a decid edly anti-union stance in the last four bargaining sessions and are pro posing contract language that would take away numerous benefits that state employes already enjoy. The State's proposals would cut leave or holidays in five areas— including paid leave for all 51 employes involved in the bargaining process—and would seriously erode classification benefits in four areas of the current contract. The State is also proposing to put all classified employes who have had any person nel action in the past two years on a trial-service period. “ This 'take-back' strategy is typical of the anti-union tactics the State negotiators have been using since bargaining began," said Alice Dale, spokesperson for OPEU's Bargaining '81 team. “ State employes should not have to fight in bargaining to retain benefits they have gained over the years in their contracts." There are five areas where the State w ants to reduce tim e -o ff th a t employes have under their current contract: • Employes presently have 11 holi days per year. The State wants to limit this to 10 by taking back the Governor's Holiday. • Employes now receive one day of personal leave per year. The State proposes to eliminate this day off. • Presently, the six employes at the central table negotiations and the 45 employes at coalition table negotia tions receive time off—with pay—to attend bargaining sessions. The State wants to completely eliminate this provision from its supplemental contract with OPEU. • Under current contract language, employes receive one day of sick leave per month, which is accrued and credited throughout the month. The State proposal says, “ Sick leave is not earned or credited until the erjd of the month or pay period.” This means that if an employe uses up all their sick leave by the end of the month, they would have to wait until the end of the next month before they could leave work for illness and not lose pay. • Employes who are about to retire currently are allowed to take off three-and-one-half days for pre retirement counseling. The State wants to totally eliminate this benefit. In addition, the State has totally rejected OPEU's proposals for bereavement and maternity leave and time off to vote in government elections. The second major roll back in employe benefits that the State is pushing, concerns cla ssification issues. They are proposing four significant cuts: • Under the current contract, any employe who works in a higher classification for 15 days must be paid, at the higher rate, for all time worked. The State is proposing that only after 30 days can an employe be paid at a higher rate for all time worked, and then only if the employe does the full range of duties for the higher classification and if the employe has written approval of his or her supervisor before work at the higher level begins. • Present contract language says that the State must give an employe 60 days notice of any downward reclassification and that the em ploye's salary rate will stay the same if his or her new classification is lower than the range of the old classifica tion. The State proposes to give employes only 15 days notice of downward reclassification and an immediate drop in wages to the range of the lower classification. • In cases of upward reclassification, employes currently receive a salary Alice Dale, spokesperson for OPEU’s Bargaining '81 team, discusses the pro gress of negotiations with members at a recent meeting in Portland. Dale has been meeting with members around the state to discuss contract issues and the status of bargaining. Reorganization effort focuses on bargaining Major reorganization of OPEU, according to bargaining units, is now in its final stages. “We ho longer are an organization with a dual personality,” said Steve Green, District 2 director and a major contributor to reorganization plan ning. “ Now instead of being'organ ized along both geographic and bargaining unit lines at the same time, we are organized only by bargaining units.” He added that the organization of the union now realistically reflects and is financially supportive of its primary task—bargaining. Under the new plan, all old chapters (and BURCs) have been dissolved. They have been replaced with locals that incorporate all members of a single agency. Thus, some single-district locals— such as the Lincoln City Police—will have virtually no change in member ship from their old chapter format. However, bargaining units which are statewide—such as APS or CSD— have been formed into large locals that include all members of an agency. Each of these locals can subdivide by districts if they desire. Previously, these m u lti-d is tric t units were split into chapters with membership restricted to the geo graphic boundries of each district. All six geographic districts will continue to exist, w ith d is tric t directors remaining as members of the Board of Directors. Until new local constitutions and by-laws have been written by local members and local officers have been elected, the BURC chairperson will serve as presiding officer. This new organizational structure was prompted when OPEU officials and General Council sought a way to fund the union's new bargaining format—a format that includes over 50 members on the six negotiating teams and allows direct employe imput into the bargaining process. Under the old chapter system, bargaining and bargaining-related activities were guaranteed only $25,000, while chapter activities—in the form of union dues rebates—were budgeted at $110,000. It was up to each chapter to determ ine the continued on page 9 increase on the first of the month following the date the reclassification request is received by the Personnel Division. The State wants any salary increases, resulting from upward reclassification, to be on the first of the month follo w in g legislative approval of funding for the reclassifi cations. If the legislature fails to approve the funding, the State wants to prohibit back pay for working out of class, as it is now required to pay under the current contract. • Under the grievance procedure section of the current contract "unjust and inequitable acts,” along with express contract violations, are considered grievable acts. The State is proposing that "u n ju st and inequitable acts" be deleted from this section of the contract. OPEU has also prop&sed that a job evaluation and classification task force be formed under provisions of the new central contract. The primary reasons for this proposal are that the current classification system is more arbitrary than scientific, other states have developed more scie n tific m ethods that are fa ir to both management and employes and there has been no complete study of the state’s classification system in over 40 years. The state wants to totally delete this proposal. One of the State’s most alarming proposals to date is its plan that would place many state employes on a two year trial-service period. During this period, employes would be subject to discharge without recourse to grievance procedures. Included in this trial service period would be all employes who achieved their position by “ initial appointment, promotion, demotion, transfer, reinstatement or reemployment.” According to. Dale, this proposal would effect all classified employes who have had any type of personnel action in the last two years. “ The State admitted at the table that there is nothing in its proposal that would prohibit it from promoting or transferring employes at any time,” said Dale. “ As a result, it could keep nearly all employes on trial service status indefinitely.” Another personnel chartgethat the State is proposing would create a new category of employes—intermittent employes. This category would include all employes who work on a “ irregular fluctuating basis because of conditions beyond the control of management." Under the State's proposal, these employes would receive no vacation time or leave of any type, no medical coverage, no penalty pay, no over time pay and would have no layoff rights. State negotiators indicated that employment on a fluctuating basis could run for years. They also said that they hope to include most employes now categorized as sea sonal employes under this proposal.
