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.