S P E C
IA
L
R E P O R T
S P E C
A
L
R E P O R T
Solidarity of State Employes in Bargaining Begins to Show
Questionaire Quotes
State was giving next to nothing. It has
taken us a longtime to get what we have
and it is important that we don’t let the
State take it away.”
OPEU Proposal
No bargaining unit employe or bargaining
unit position shall be adversely effected as a
result of contracting out.
Central table m e m b e r-n e g o tia to r John Clap speaks to Salem rally.
is unfair that, when you retire, the
S ta te w ill only pay h a lf o f your
accumulated sick leave. We should
receive 100 percent o f what we earn.”
Members sign petitions, ask questions following Portland rally.
“ You can’t afford to give up what you’ve
fought to gain in past contracts. I f you
do as state bureaucrats are proposing,
you won’t even be the working poor—
you will be the working poorer. ”
Thomas Gallagher
Executive Director
Page 6
Rati jnale
State Proposal
We have had prob ems in AFS and Oregon
State Hospital with t >e State contracting out
bargaining unit work in order to save money.
The OPEU proposal would prohibit the State
from hiring employes to do bargaining unit
work for less pay or ewer benefits and then
laying-off bargaining unit employes.
By contracting cut work to non-state
employes, the State often saves money
because they can tien refuse to pay into
social security, offer retirement or health
benefits or contribute to the worker’s
unemployment condensation fund. These
benefits (known a: OPEs), which state
employes have won n past contracts, make
up .34 percent of each employe’s pay
package.
Governor Atiyeh is proposing that the
State spend $168 mil ion on salary and OPEs
for state employes and $288 m illion fo r
contracting out during the next bienium.
No counter proposal.
Layoffs shall be made agency by agency
based on seniority—most recent hired, first
to be laid off. Layoffs by seniority shall be in
th e fo llo w in g o rd e r: 1st tria l-s e rv ic e
employes, 2nd part-time employes, 3rd fu ll
time employes.
The longer you
rk fo r an agency, the
more job security yc u ought to have.
Basing the layof system on seniority
would expedíate
process by avoiding
problems with servil e credit computations
and merit evaluatio and would substan-
tially reduce "bum p 9 ”
Under current ru U « th e r e a re lo n g d e la y s
and m ultiple “ bumpih gs.”
No counter proposal.
Reprimands, reductions In pay, demo
tions, suspensions and dismissals can only
be imposed fo r a just cause. There must be
an appropriate degree of m isconduct to
warrent discipline. Progressive discipline
must be used whenever appropriate.
Written, pre-dismissal notice and the
opportunity to respond to the notice must be
granted. The employe will be entitled to
appeal any dismissal decision to ERB within
10 days of thè effective date of such action.
A maximum 90-day trial service period.
This period can only be imposed on
employes upon initial appointm ent.,
By providing e m p lr yes with what is known
legally as procedurp I due process rights,
arbitrary and incons ifctant discipline and dis-
charge actions by i management personnel
w ill be avoided.
Maximum 90-day trial service period. This
period can only be imposed on employes
upon initial appointment.
For m any post t ons, six-m o n th tria l
service—which is tl e current practice— is
too long. It enables the State to avoid
g ra n tin g em ploye^ jo b s e c u rity th a t
permanent state employes are afforded
under the contract.
In addition, trial ar d probationary periods
averaging 30, 60 and 90 days are the most
common in the United States.
Two-year trial service w ill apply to any
state employe when that employe is initially
appointed, promoted, demoted, transferred,
reinstated or reemployed.
Since the State has a 25 percent turn-over
of employes every year, in two years, 50
percent of all state employes would be on
trial service status. The State could then
transfer or promote and employe and put
even more employes on trial service.
By its own admission, the management
says large numbers of employes could be
kept on trial service status indefinately.
Provisions fo r seasonal employes in the
current central contract and personnel rules
are fair and adequate and must be written
into this contract.
Seasonal or "inte mittent” employes are
entitled to at least th< following rights (under
the State's proposal intermittent” employes
would receive none mi these):
1) Notice upon scheduling and un-
scheduling o f work:
2) Layoff rights: atd
3) Benefits, indue ng leaves (i.e. tim e-off
fo r illness, holidays, vacations), medical and
dental insurance, o iv ?rtime, penalty pay and
shift differential
If work is available on an "irregularly
fluctuating basis,” because of conditions
beyond the control of “the appointing
authority,” the position w ould be designated
interm ittent employment.
Audience discussion at Bargaining Action Days was often pointed.
“ We must have cost o f living adjust
ments that are manditory; hut not at the
cost o f losing other benefits.”
Questionaire Quotes
Job Security^ A Key Issue
“ WTien I joined OSEA 20 years ago, the
“State employes should be competitive
with other employes in pay, benefits,
job security and safety in the work
place.”
Business agent Jeff Schrader addresses Eugene bargaining rally.
Zifee receiving more benefits, because
they don’t put me in a higher tax
bracket.”
The State has said that they are in
substantial agreement with us on this issue,
although they have no signed-off this issue.
Members sign petitions at Salem Bargaining Action Days rally.
“Increasing wages o f state employes—
not necessarily to the top o f the scale,
but at least so we are competitive with
other employes— would help morale and
would increase work productivity and
quality.”
Barry Rudd shows off union buttons that are available for Button Day.
“I f you give up your rights or your
benefits or the wage and cost o f living
increases you deserve, you’ll never get
them back.”
Thomas Gallagher
Executive Director
Page 7