N
E
G
O
T I A
T
I O
N
S
/ P
O
L
I T I C
A
L
A C T IO
N
Bargaining at the Legislature
Legislative jousting over how to
allocate too few dollars for too many
programs is having more effect on
state employes than possible layoffs.
This overriding convem of the 61st
Legislature is also having a signifi
cant impact on negotiations fora new
state contract.
Besides appropriating funds for all
state programs and agency budgets,
the legislature must approve the
am ount the State w ill pay its
employes.
“ It is important that state employes
understand this legislative side of
negotiations,” said Thomas Gal
lagher, OPEL) Executive Director.
“They must make legislators, as well
as the State's negotiators, realize that
state employes are going to fight for
what they deserve and that they will
not accept a sub-par contract.”
OPEU Government Relations Di
rector Chuck Mendenhall points out
that state employes need to know
how they are perceived in the political
process if they are going to have an
impact. “While state employes are the
people who run the agencies and feel
a direct impact from any agency
budget cuts, they are viewed as a
special interest in terms of their
contractural demands.”
In short, state employes have a very
large stake in the political battles that
will be fought over the 1981-83
budget.
“ The real issue forthis legislature is
going to be which agencies and
special interests will be forced to
í
undergo a disproportionate amount
of belt tightening to support those
agencies and special interests who
are not,” said Mendenhall. “The
arguments over these budgetary
matters are going to be heated.”
This scenario in which state
employes find themselves, was
brought to a head when Governor
Atiyeh put responsibility for budget
cutting directly in the legislature’s
lap. He introduced a budget for the
1981-83 bienium that is nearly
$250,000 out of balance and is
up the difference by increasing taxes.
Oregon law requires that the State's
budget be in balance.
Lately, there has been some
I sentiment to introduce new tax
measures. Senate president Fred
Heard (D-Klamath Falls) said on April
| 22, “ I think we are going to have to
State Proposes Pay Cut
in First Year of Contract
The State has put a pay package
on the table that, if accepted as is,
would mean a net wage loss of 1.5
percent in the first year of a new
contract and only a net wage
increase of 2.85 percent during the
entire two-year life of the proposed
contract.
“When the Labor Relations Divi
sion offers this kind of a pay
proposal, it must become obvious
even to the most casual observer
that the State has no concern for
the personal welfare of its em
ployes,” said Thomas Gallagher;
OPEU Executive Director. "This
proposal was put together by a
bunch of bureaucrats who are
trying to look good for the
legislature at the expense of state
employes."
The proposal the State offered
on April 24 would give employes a
4.5 percent- wage increase in the
first year of a new contract,
followed by a 4.35 percent wage
increase in the second year of a
new contract.
However, this proposal would
result in a substantial pay cut for
state employes, because the State
would take back its contribution to
the Public Employes Retirement
System (PERS).
Under the current contract, the
State contributes the equivalent of
six percent of each employe’s net
pay to PERS. .The State’s take back
strategy, in this instance (which is
the equivalent to approximately
eight percent of after-tax wages),
appears to be to delete this portion
of the current contract by simply
not mentioning It in their proposal.
If each employe were to pay for
their retirement program at pre
sent levels, their loss—in before
tax income—would be 1.5 percent
in the first year of the contract. If
this figure is computed in spend
able, or after-tax income, state
employes would suffer a 3.5
percent wage loss.
Besides drawing the ire of
leadership and staff over their
wage increases fo r all state
employes, the State’s proposals
for selective salary adjustments
were termed “ ridiculous,"
The State is proposing that all
selective salary adjustments and
reclassifications that exceed a
total cost of $2 million for the
bienium; will be deducted from the
proposed across-the-board in
creases.
"The State’s proposal in this area
is only about two-thirds of what we
normally receive/’ said Eleanor
Meyers, OPEU Personnel and
C lassification Analyst. “ That
approximately $3 million was only
enough to keep many groups from
falling significantly behind in the
first year of the current contract.
“This time, State employes must
have much more, because there
are over 50 classifications that are
significantly behind in pay scales
relative to other public and private
sector employes in similar posi
tions.”
State Complaint Against OPEO
Called ‘Face-Saving’ Measure
On April 24, the State filed an Unfair
Labor Practice (ULP) complaint that
OPEU Executive Director Thomas
Gallagher characterized as strictly a
face-saving devise.
The central allegation of the four-
page complaint is that OPEU refused
to bargain in good faith by pre
maturely declaring an impasse and
requesting the assistance of a
mediator.
Unlike federal statutes, Oregon law
does not require that negotiations be
at impasse before parties can enter
into mediation. Instead, the Oregon
Collective Bargaining Act allows
either party to put the negotiations
into mediation if, after a reasonable
amount of time, an agreement has not
been reached.
“ It is difficult to find any reasonable
evidence as to why the State would
file this complaint,” Gallagher said. “ I
can only presume they felt a face
saving measure was needed once
they realized they should not have
walked out of mediation.”
“ I feel very comfortable that we
have proceded (with negotiations and
mediation) in conformity with the
requirements of the Oregon Col
lective Bargaining Act,” said Alice
Dale, chief spokesperson for OPEU’s
central bargaining team. “We were
very explicit when we informed the
State that we were invoking our right
to move negotiations into mediation.
At no point did we maintain that
negotiations were at impasse.”
Outside parties contacted by The
Oregon Public Employe generally
concurred that the State’s case
appears very weak. But they said that
the Employment Relations Board,
(ERB) would probably hear the
complaint because it involves such
large parties.
The State attempted to gain public
sentiment and widespread press
coverage for their position by issuing
a press release on their ULP through
the Governor’s office.
One of the major points raised in
the release was a portion of the
State’s complaint that said, "Despite
knowledge of the financial crisis
being experienced by the State,
OPEU’s salary demands of April 9
totalled more than 35 percent and
were offered on a “take it or leave it
basis” without the spirit of com
promise.”
“This statement must be viewed as
simple grandstanding by the State,”
said Gallagher. “ Our salary proposal
calls for a 13.5 percent wage increase
in the first year of the contract and
cost of living adjustments linked to
the consumer price index in the
second year of the contract. I see no
way this could possibly compute to
be 35 percent.”
pursue new revenues." He said that
he would begin meeting with indivi
dual senators to determine their
stances on tax increases.
But Heard’s comments were seen
primarily as a test of public sentiment.
Most legislators, at least publically,
remain firmly against any major new
tax measures. This sentiment is based
on a widely-held belief, among
legislators, that political fall-out from
being held responsible for raising
taxes could be disasterous in any
future election.
Faced with a deficit budget and
little or no support for new taxes, the
Joint Ways and Means Committee is
cutting 10 percent from each item in
the Governor’s budget. Included in
the cuts are property tax relief, basic
school support, higher education,
human resources and all agency
budgets.
However, this is not the only area
where legislators are looking to save
money. Some have suggested that
state employes take a reduction in
pay and benefits. These lawmakers
have said the only alternative may be
layoffs.
"Such proposals are nothing more
than a tax on state employes,"
Gallagher said. “They are highly
unjust.
" “ In the November elections and in
special elections since then, Ameri
can's have made it clear that they
want less government—not Just at the
federal level, but in Oregon as well,”
he added. “State government was
built program by program. It must be
left to the people of the State and their
legislators to analyze programs and
decide where cuts are going to be
made."
Gallagher added, “ If the legislature
decides that more revenues are
needed to fund programs that the
people are demanding, then those
revenues should be raised equally.
State employes will not stand still for
measures that say they will be forced
to decide who will be layed-off if they
don't fund programs from their own
pockets.”
TAKE A GIANT STEP INTO
ADVENTURE
“ Row-lt-Yoursolf”
p articip ato ry w h ite w a te r
ra ft trips
ecolo-
gically
focused
x s r r jx
free
brochure
1 ' r ‘'Z '- '- ,
Salmon
Deschutes
Owyhee
Umpqua
rivers
O REG ON RIVER EXPERIENCES
1935 Hayes St. Eugene, OR 97405
(503) 342-3293
THUMDERBIRD
Motor Lodge
1015 South Riverside
Medford, Oregon
$4
Discount
to OSEA Members
$23Znight single occupancy
r
1
Western
2 blocks off 1-5
Adjacent to OPEU
Page 5