Search
Summary of GG Bargaining – 1/21/25:
  1. State Budget Presentation: Bargaining began with an overview of the state budget.
  2. Union Proposals:
    • Release Time: Union MOU proposed to allow union meeting participation during employer-paid release time, rather than using lunch breaks or paid leave accrual.
    • Economic Reopener Clause: Union suggested reopener language to renegotiate economic items if revenue improves.
    • Wage Issues: Union proposed a workgroup with OFM to address state worker wages, highlighting that the issue is long-term and requires collaboration.
  3. Transfer Policy Discussion:
    • Debate over proposed changes to CVEO transfer policies, including seniority-based transfers and management discretion.
    • Concerns raised about subjective decision-making and lack of transparency in transfer approvals.
  4. Telework Policy:
    • Union sought language ensuring telework denials would not be arbitrary. The employer cited existing policies as sufficient and resisted adding explicit contractual language.
  5. Economic Package:
    • Discussion of the $33 million cost of the union's 2025-2027 economic proposals, with employers emphasizing limited funds.
    • Frustration from union representatives about perceived mismanagement of budget priorities and underfunding of critical roles.
  6. General Frustrations:
    • Union expressed concerns over lack of movement on proposals, unclear decision-making processes, and limited scope of bargaining.
    • Calls for more transparency, meaningful negotiations, and ownership of the bargaining process by the employer.
  7. Next Steps:
    • Union requested clarity on which compensation proposals are negotiable and untouchable.
    • Agreement to explore additional bargaining dates, with the next session set for February 13.
Higher Education Bargaining Update – January 16, 2025
Next Bargaining Dates: 
​HE - 1/27, 1/30
​GG- 1/21

Key Discussions and Updates Proposals and Agreements
  • Contract Duration and Language Updates:
    State agree to a 2 year contract
  • Inclement Weather Policy (Article 17):
    The union proposed changes to address challenges faced by employees during inclement weather, including options for remote work for staff unable to safely commute. Examples from staff experiences illustrated the need for this policy.
  • Compensation and Retention (Article 18):
    • A new approach to personal leave was proposed to incentivize retention, including additional leave days based on tenure.
    • Discussions emphasized the financial and operational impacts of high employee turnover.
Economic Proposals
  • General Wage Increase:
    The union proposed a 10% increase annually over two years, citing the need to address wage stagnation and retention issues.
  • Job Classifications:
    A proposal to reallocate and improve compensation for PS2 positions was introduced, emphasizing the significant workload differences compared to other classifications.
  • Longevity Recognition:
    Suggestions included adding steps to pay ranges, reducing time to Step M from six to three years, and introducing a $1,000 recognition for long-term employees.
Union Concerns
  • Systematic Oversight:
    Union representatives expressed frustration over longstanding wage disparities and a lack of prioritization for state employees. Historical data from OFM highlighted significant gaps in prevailing wage alignment.
  • Budget and Justification:
    Concerns were raised over perceived inequities in budget allocations, particularly regarding significant raises for administrators compared to rank-and-file staff.
  • Contractor Costs:
    Examples were provided of colleges paying contractors substantially higher wages for work comparable to that performed by regular employees.
Employer Responses
  • Budget limitations and state deficits as constraints but highlighted prior wage increases and benefits as mitigating factors.
  • The employer emphasized that some proposals require further analysis and would provide counters by the end of the day.

Next Steps
  • Continued discussions on compensation, classifications, and remote work policies.
  • Review of employer counters and preparation for further proposals to address union priorities.

This session highlighted ongoing challenges in achieving equitable compensation and workplace policies. The union remains committed to advocating for meaningful improvements to address members’ concerns.
Higher Education Bargaining Update – January 14, 2025
​The latest session of Higher Education bargaining revealed ongoing challenges in negotiations, with key discussions centering around observer roles, proposals on overtime, non-economic issues, and meeting policies. Below is a summary of the key points:

Proposals and Responses
  1. Overtime Policies:
    • Union representatives advocated for a shift in overtime rules to address real-life scheduling conflicts and member concerns.
    • Management reaffirmed their position to maintain current contract language, stating that overtime must be pre-approved by supervisors.
    • Union negotiators expressed frustration, emphasizing that the status quo no longer meets member needs and advocating for meaningful changes.
  2. Non-Economic Proposals:
    • The union presented four proposals addressing language updates, including summer hours and scheduling flexibility.
    • Management countered that they had already responded to prior proposals and highlighted differences in interpretation, leading to further tension.
  3. Classified Staff Meeting Policy:
    • Management proposed a trial year allowing one paid, one-hour classified staff meeting only using comp time or vacation, citing concerns about tracking and operational impact.
    • Union negotiators criticized the proposal as insufficient and inconsistent with allowances granted to faculty and administrative staff. Additionally, this doesn't change anything that isn't currently happening.

Communication and Frustration
  • Union Concerns: Union members expressed dissatisfaction with management’s perceived lack of substantive counters, emphasizing the need for collaborative solutions rather than flat rejections.
  • Management’s Stance: Management maintained they were responding appropriately but reiterated their right not to accept union proposals outright.

Next Steps
  • Duration Discussions: Management stated they would address contract duration only after all proposals are submitted.

Key Takeaways
  • Both parties need improved communication to resolve misunderstandings and foster meaningful progress.
  • Union representatives called for substantive counterproposals to address member concerns effectively.
  • Management emphasized operational challenges and precedent in defending their positions.
The bargaining session concluded with unresolved issues and a commitment to continue discussions in subsequent meetings.
Next Bargaining Dates: 
​HE - 1/14, 1/16, 1/27, 1/30
General Bargaining Update from 1/9/2025
Discussion Points
  1. Article 34: Seniority
    • Discussion on how medical leave (FMLA or PFML) impacts seniority.
    • Clarification sought: approved medical leave (e.g., large leave due to a motorcycle accident) counts as unbroken service to the state.
    • Existing seniority rules (1-6) are supported by statute; some nuances discussed.
  2. Targeted Positions
    • Focus on recruitment and retention for revenue-generating and life-supporting positions.
    • Examples: Revenue auditor series, excise tax examiners, wildland fire dispatchers, timber sales staff, welders, and HVAC technicians.
    • Emphasized challenges in hiring specialized roles and their impact on costs.
  3. Article 21: Compensation
    • Current proposals align with prior TAs, including a 3% and 2% COLA, though expressed concerns about staying competitive with inflation.
    • Proposal to add new steps to pay scales to provide benefits for employees maxed out on their pay range.
    • Impact: Approximately 450 employees affected; discussed the long-term benefits of retaining experienced staff.
  4. Memorializing Proposals
    • Requested clarity on finalized proposals for record-keeping.
    • Both parties aligned on closing certain articles and no further changes.
  5. Article 41: Longevity and Inflation Concerns
    • Highlighted challenges of state wages lagging behind private sector and inflation.
    • Proposal for longevity pay to recognize dedicated employees with long service.
    • Acknowledged fiscal constraints, including the state’s $12 billion deficit.

Next Bargaining Dates: 
GG - 1/9
​HE - 1/14, 1/16, 1/27, 1/30
Higher Education Bargaining - December 17, 2024
Summary of Key Discussions and Developments:
  1. Proposals and Duration:
    • The Union emphasized the importance of clarifying the contract duration (one or two years) before proceeding with meaningful proposals.
    • OFM acknowledged that duration is a bargaining item but maintained that some answers regarding the contract timeline are not immediately available, leading to frustration among the union representatives.
  2. Unanswered Questions:
    • Persistent concerns arose about unresolved issues from prior legal proceedings and the lack of direct responses from management. Union representatives stressed that these uncertainties hinder their ability to draft comprehensive proposals.
  3. Membership Feedback:
    • Union representatives highlighted the disconnect between proposals and member expectations. They pointed to significant economic concerns, including low wages and job classifications that fail to reflect a living wage.
    • Membership dissatisfaction stems from a perceived lack of progress in addressing issues like telework flexibility, retention challenges, and economic equity.
  4. Tone and Communication:
    • Tensions arose around the tone of discussions, with management urging respect and decorum while union representatives expressed frustration over perceived stalling and lack of clarity.
  5. Non-Economic Priorities:
    • Union representatives identified non-economic issues such as safety, health, and telework as critical priorities. They requested clarity on what management considers flexible versus non-negotiable terms.
    • Discussions included the inclusion of natural disasters in leave policies and simplifying inclement weather procedures to better serve employees.
  6. Economic Pressures:
    • Economic concerns dominated much of the conversation, with union representatives emphasizing the need for meaningful changes to address financial struggles among employees.
    • Members expressed dissatisfaction with management’s reluctance to address economic proposals and sought assurances on the feasibility of proposed changes.
  7. Next Steps and Unresolved Items:
    • OFM committed to providing written responses to outstanding questions and proposals. However, management did not commit to immediate resolutions or timelines.
    • The union plans to revisit key issues, particularly around contract duration, priorities, and flexibility, in subsequent sessions.
Union Perspective:
Union representatives reiterated the need for actionable responses and meaningful changes to improve member satisfaction and trust. They urged management to prioritize direct answers and address the root causes of contract rejection.
Management Perspective:
Management expressed their intent to work collaboratively but maintained that certain constraints, including statewide alignment and budget considerations, limit their flexibility.
Conclusion:
Both parties recognized the importance of progressing discussions to address member concerns. The union emphasized urgency in tackling economic and non-economic issues, while management committed to further deliberations and written follow-ups.

House & Senate - December 16, 2024
House & Senate Bargaining Teams have TA'd their contract and will be sent out to a vote! 
House Bargaining Update – September 13, 2024
The recent House bargaining session covered important topics including training, telework, discipline, and personnel files. Here are the highlights:
  1. Training Release Time:
    • WPEA proposed that release time for training would be beneficial for both career and personal growth, The House responded that while they would consider courses like Excel for training, they are not prepared to agree to release time for credit courses or paying for training. However, they expressed willingness to work with employees to adjust schedules when necessary.
  2. Telework and Discipline:
    • The House clarified that noncompliance with telework agreements would include issues like not logging in or being unavailable during work hours. While noncompliance would not lead to immediate disciplinary action, it could result in a conversation to address the issue.
    • The House maintained the need for flexibility to decline telework during sessions but committed to working with employees on their schedules.
    • On discipline, WPEA raised concerns about reductions in pay, emphasizing that employees should not work without receiving full pay. The House reiterated the importance of maintaining the ability to let someone go if necessary, even if the issue is not related to job performance.
  3. Personnel Files:
    • The House clarified that personnel files are minimal, mostly containing appointment letters and attendance records. They assured that disciplinary records are not shared with other agencies.
    • WPEA raised concerns about the long-term impact of disciplinary records and stressed the importance of not allowing past issues to negatively affect future opportunities.
  4. Holiday and Session Work:
    • Legislative staff working during sessions receive granted time, and employees who work beyond a 35-hour week receive additional granted time, though it holds no cash value except for two holidays.
  5. Union Rights and Grievances:
    • The House expressed that grievances should only proceed to superior court if not resolved internally. They believe they have reached an impasse, but WPEA disagreed, stating that the membership isn’t ready to compromise on key issues.
      ​
Negotiations will continue as both sides work to find common ground on these critical matters. Stay tuned for more updates as we move closer to resolution.
DNR Specific Bargaining - September 11, 2024

The latest bargaining session between WPEA and DNR addressed several critical issues related to R&R days, compensation, and meal per diems. Here’s a summary of key points discussed:
  1. Article 7 – R&R Days and Overtime Clarification:
    • WPEA proposed language to clarify that time worked on R&R days should count toward overtime.
    • DNR acknowledged the need for clarification but deferred to payroll for a definitive answer. This is a longstanding practice, and further information will be provided by payroll on how this is consistently handled.
  2. Article 20 – R&R Day Limits:
    • WPEA proposed expanding the number of R&R days from 1 to 2. However, DNR countered with maintaining 1 day, citing a cost of $110,000 for just 1 day.
    • WPEA requested further explanation for the decision and discussed the complications when R&R days fall on scheduled days off, particularly regarding compensation for weekends.
  3. Meal Per Diem (Article 20.14):
    • The parties discussed meal compensation, with WPEA pointing out conflicting language about midnight meals and asking whether the meal should be categorized as breakfast, lunch, or dinner.
    • DNR clarified that it does not specify the type of meal, and revisions were proposed to streamline access to per diem rates, allowing employees to refer directly to the State Administrative & Accounting Manual (SAAM).
  4. Compensation Proposal:
    • There was significant discussion around wage increases, specifically the union’s request for a $1/hour increase for members working in wildfire roles.
    • DNR provided a cost estimate of $250,000 for the raise, while WPEA emphasized the critical need for fair compensation, highlighting that DNR members are paid the least for this hazardous work. WPEA stressed that without competitive pay, members are likely to leave the agency for better-paying opportunities.
  5. Caucus and Further Discussion:
    • During the caucus, DNR revisited the R&R day policy from two contract cycles ago. It was confirmed that under the current language, R&R days are no longer counted as time worked for overtime purposes. WPEA appreciated the clarification and will provide a counterproposal by Friday.
As negotiations continue, WPEA remains committed to advocating for fair compensation and clear policies to support our DNR members. 
General Government Bargaining Update – September 10, 2024
The latest bargaining session covered a wide range of important topics affecting our members. Here's a summary of the key points discussed:
  1. WSDA Safety MOU: We are grateful for the willingness to address the WSDA safety concerns through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This is a critical step towards improving workplace safety.
  2. Sick Leave (Article 12): Discussion focused on removing outdated RCW language around partial sick leave. Since the RCW already covers what was in the contract, the parties reached a tentative agreement (TA) to streamline this section.
  3. Telework (Article 24): A key issue raised was the lack of clear reasons for the denial of telework requests. We are pushing for clearer guidance and documentation when requests are denied, as many denials do not appear to have valid reasons. We’ve proposed revisions and expect a response soon.
  4. Critical Infrastructure Status: Discussions continue around defining which positions qualify as essential during crises. The aim is to clarify roles so that during future emergencies, there is less confusion about who must report to work.
  5. Inflation Adjustments & CVEO Barriers: There was significant dialogue about inflation adjustments and statutory barriers for CVEOs. While we acknowledge these legal challenges, we are advocating for equitable solutions.
  6. WSSB/CDHY Proposals: Discussions about workload, caseload, and testing for visually impaired teachers were central to the conversation. The need for clear workload caps and mechanisms to support staff remains a top concern, as outreach caseloads vary and classrooms can quickly become overcrowded. We also raised the issue of compensating staff for time spent in meetings that extend beyond normal work hours.
  7. Exchange Time: The complexities of exchange time were discussed, with questions raised about how it is tracked and compensated. While CDHY and WSSB use similar systems, there is no ability to pay staff for unused exchange time, particularly during summer months. We proposed building in extra days for staff to take during the summer to account for this.
As always, the bargaining team is working hard to ensure your voices are heard and that we secure fair and equitable working conditions for all members. Stay tuned for further updates in the coming weeks about the contract ratification vote.
Senate Bargaining September 10, 2024
Senate Bargaining Update – September 10, 2024
In the latest bargaining session, discussions focused on union rights, disciplinary processes, and remote work. Here’s a summary of key points:
  1. Union Rights:
    • WPEA proposed language to ensure that any meeting between the union and the employer aimed at presenting or resolving a grievance would be clearly defined. Additionally, while the Facilities & Operations (F&O) office retains final authority in grievance cases, WPEA seeks to clarify that F&O can consult with both the union and the employer before making a decision.
    • In disciplinary matters, the union proposed removing "reductions in pay" from potential disciplinary actions and adding provisions for union representation during discussions with the employer.
  2. Remote Work and Discipline:
    • A significant portion of the discussion centered on how noncompliance with remote work agreements would be handled. The Senate clarified that noncompliance, such as not logging in or being unavailable during work hours, would not immediately result in disciplinary action. Instead, the employer would reach out to understand the situation and discuss the issue before any formal steps are taken.
    • Both parties recognized that remote work has been effective and agreed on the importance of communication before escalating any issues.
These updates reflect the ongoing collaboration to ensure that both union rights and workplace policies, such as remote work, are fairly managed. Further discussions will continue to address these important matters. Stay tuned for more updates.
​Higher Education Bargaining Update - September 9, 2024

The Washington Public Employees Association resumed bargaining on September 9, focusing on several key issues affecting higher education employees, including telework policies, mandatory training, and compensation.

Housekeeping and Telework Policies Initial discussions centered around telework, with the WPEA proposing language to protect employees' rights. However, management responded by stating that telework would not be subject to the grievance procedure, a point of contention for union representatives. Bargaining team members voiced concerns that the currently proposed telework policy could allow managers to deny remote work arbitrarily, without any recourse for employees.

The WPEA continues to advocate for a fair and enforceable telework policy that ensures equity for classified staff.

Mandatory Training on Mandatory Subjects for Managers Training for managers on Mandatory Subject was another significant topic of debate. WPEA pressed for mandatory training, with representatives pointing out that anything that is not mandatory will be put on the back burner.
Despite these arguments, management resisted the idea of mandatory training, insisting that the colleges were already compliant with bargaining processes, despite the Unfair Labor Practice settlements recently won by WPEA.

Compensation and Non-Economic Proposals On compensation, the WPEA stood firm in its demands, proposing a 10% increase each year to address the rising cost of living and the disparity between faculty and classified staff wages.
Management offered a 2% increase each year, which was met with frustration from the union. Bargaining team members remarked by saying “That’s not going to get our members off housing assistance.”
Bargaining team members that the 2% offer was an insult, calling on the Office of Financial Management (OFM) to pay employees what they’re worth:
“Public Employees are tired of OFM and tired of them not doing their job. We will not be ignored anymore. 2% and 2% is an insult.”

​Looking Ahead As the fall quarter approaches, the WPEA is committed to continuing its fight for fair compensation, equitable telework policies, and mandatory training for managers. Bargaining will resume later this week, and the union remains hopeful that management will address these critical issues before the deadline.
Higher Education Bargaining - September 5, 2024

​In another disappointing session, the WPEA Higher Education Bargaining team focused on various topics, including safety, telework, and seniority issues. Key highlights include:
  • Safety Meetings: Concerns were raised regarding the inconsistency of LMCC (Labor-Management Communication Committee) meetings and the need for clear communication about scheduling. Lance noted that safety meetings at Skagit College often get canceled in the summer, emphasizing the importance of flexibility.
  • Telework Discussions (Article 20): The bargaining team discussed telework policies on a campus-by-campus basis. There was a push for transparency on why certain requests are denied, with asking for responses within 14 days.
  • Reallocation and Seniority Issues (Articles 41 and 35): WPEA reasserted their proposal on reallocation, addressing challenges faced by employees with long-term part-time experience who are now subject to competitive hiring processes. The issue of resetting seniority dates for part-time workers transitioning to full-time roles was a major concern, with the union seeking recognition for years of service.
  • Suspended Operations (Article 17): Discussions revolved around telework options during suspended operations, especially for new employees and those without formal plans in place. The goal is to ensure continuity of work while addressing gaps in the current contract.
  • Management Training and Contract Understanding: There was a conversation about the need for management training on union contract obligations, particularly around mandatory subjects of bargaining. The union emphasized the importance of having concrete language to prevent issues from recurring.
  • Orca Card Benefit (Article 26): WPEA is advocating for the Orca card benefit for employees in King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties, aiming to improve commuting options for those regions.
  • Seniority System Challenges (Article 35): The team discussed the complications of shifting from one type of seniority system to another, particularly in terms of layoffs and seniority recognition across institutions.
  • Compensation: The State submitted a proposal for a 2% and 1% for their compensation proposal, further infuriating the bargaining team. Additionally, answers were not answered about the $18 minimum wage addendum that doesn’t equal $18 and no additional job classes were added for classification increases.
Bargaining will continue Monday, September 9
General Government Bargaining Summary: September 4, 2024
Updated September 4, 2024

The bargaining session focused on several key articles and issues, including seniority-based decisions, telework policies, job classifications, and compensation. Here's a summary of the discussions:
  • Article 3: Seniority remains a primary factor in the Union’s proposal
  • Article 4 and 6: Tentative agreements (TA) are expected, with negotiations around Article 7 continuing.
  • Article 10: Personal leave days are being negotiated, with more proposed by the union, but the state reasserting limitations due to legislative constraints.
  • Article 17: The union seeks to increase personal leave days as a way to offer members more benefits, compensating for limited economic gains in the negotiations.
  • Telework: Discussions centered around permanent telework options, with questions raised about telework eligibility and flexibility in weekly work-from-home days.
  • Job Classifications: The union raised concerns about potential losses in compensation for heavy equipment operators if reclassification occurs, particularly in how "assignment pay" is treated. These issues, including potential reallocation of mechanics, were left unresolved.
In the afternoon session, bargaining continued with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on topics like overtime (Article 7), where union members expressed frustration over insufficient paid R&R days. Other major points included:
  • R&R Days: The state remains resistant to adding additional days.
  • Meals and Per Diem: Concerns about the lack of clear meal policies and reimbursement processes were highlighted, especially for workers in remote or hazardous environments. Stories of members being reprimanded over food choices, like buying beef jerky, underscored the need for clearer guidelines.
  • Work Conditions: Workers shared experiences of poor conditions, such as limited access to showers during long shifts. The union pushed for language that better supports employees working in challenging environments.
  • Compensation: Heated discussions continued around salary increases, recruitment and retention concerns, and why certain union proposals, especially related to the DOR excise tax examiners, were not being considered. The state offered no new movement beyond a 2% and 1% general salary increase proposal, further frustrating Bargaining Team Members.
Overall, this session was marked by frustration over a lack of progress in key areas, including compensation and working conditions, especially for essential workers like DNR firefighters and heavy equipment operators. The union continues to push for more substantial gains for its members, while the state remains constrained by budgetary limitations.
 
House Democratic Caucus - August 30, 2024 
Updated as of August 30, 2024

Union Rights and Activities:
  • Arbitration Hearing: The team mentioned holding off on responding to the latest grievance proposal.
Data Sharing:
  • Personnel Numbers: Changed from using Social Security numbers to personnel numbers.
Training and Employee Development:
  • Professional Growth: Discussed the possibility of release time for courses directly related to an employee’s position. The goal is to ensure the training benefits the state of Washington, with no allowances for unrelated personal interests.
Telework:
  • Criteria for Denial: There was a discussion about the need for valid reasons to deny telework requests, emphasizing flexibility for situations like medical appointments.
  • Employee Concerns: Concerns were raised about how restrictive telework policies might affect employee retention and recruitment, especially when compared to other employers like the City of Seattle.
Discipline and Pay:
  • Reduction in Pay: The concern was raised that employees should not be doing 100% of the work for less than 100% of the pay.
  • Layoffs: Discussed past temporary furloughs and layoffs during the Great Recession, emphasizing that these were budget-related, not disciplinary.
Telework as Discipline:
  • Non-Punitive Approach: There was continued discussion on whether telework removal should be used as a punitive measure. It was clarified that there are no plans to change the current telework policy, and it should not be withheld as a form of discipline.
Personnel Files:
  • Review and Discipline Documentation: Employees should be able to review their personnel files, add notes, and ensure they are aware of any disciplinary actions documented. There is flexibility regarding the removal of disciplinary files.
Health and Safety:
  • Compliance and Ergonomics: The proposal includes compliance with WISHA and cooperative work on safety and health issues. Legislative partners currently handle ergonomic assessments.
  • Critical Incidents and COVID-19: Added provisions for debriefing after critical incidents and guidelines on working from home if an employee is sick but capable of working.
This summary captures the key points discussed during the House Bargaining session on August 30, 2024.
 
Newsletter Summary: General Government Bargaining Update - August 27
Updated as of August 28
​
Article Discussions:
  • Promotions & Vacancies (CVEO):
    • A discussion focused on ensuring consistency across the agency regarding job postings. Concerns were raised about the impact of the "first-come, first-served" approach, especially for long-tenured employees who might miss out on opportunities due to being off-duty.
    • The Union highlighted issues with the current system, where multiple county postings could allow management to bypass certain candidates. The conversation acknowledged the need for differentiation between CVEO 2s and 3s in the hiring process.
  • Article 4: Agreement was reached on language related to special programs and minor housekeeping items.
  • Article 6 (Hours of Work): The State proposed maintaining current contract language, with an emphasis on managing travel time and critical work that can arise unexpectedly.
  • Article 10 (Holiday): The State proposed maintaining current contract language and discussed that personal days are regulated by statute, requiring legislative changes.
  • Article 17 (Miscellaneous Leave): The wildfire leave proposal was proposed from the State as original, with shared leave recognized as a legislative issue.
  • Article 18 (Childcare and Eldercare): There was debate on whether "may" or "will" should be used, with concerns about the approval process for childcare/eldercare emergency situations.
  • Article 24 (Telework): Discussion on the agency's outline for telework, with no major changes proposed from the State
DNR-Specific Bargaining:
  • Article 20 (Wildfire Suppression and R&R Days): Language was expanded to better define R&R days, particularly when they fall on a scheduled day off.
  • Appendix X (Prescribed Fires): Proposed to ensure distinction between regular workdays and R&R days.
  • Overtime (Article 7): Discussion on increasing premium pay from $2 to $3 and clarifying DNR R&R days.
  • Assignment Pay: Continued debate on whether to use flat rates or percentages, with concerns arising from the State about payroll processing.
CDHY & WSSB Bargaining:
  • Caseload and Workload Issues: The team rejected the state's package deal, emphasizing the need to address workload concerns, particularly regarding caseloads.
  • Teacher Certification and Testing: Discussion on compensating teachers for clock hours and tests needed for certification.
  • In-Service Days and Calendar Input: Suggestions were made to optimize the use of in-service days and consider additional compensation for meetings extending beyond regular hours.
 
House Democratic Bargaining Update – August 26, 2024
​
During the House Democratic bargaining session on August 26, 2024, several key topics were discussed. The House continued to proposing the removal of the language surrounding arbitration from the agreements, and proposed new provision regarding shop stewards and allowing for mutual agreement when appointing additional stewards in cases of conflict of interest. The language related to operating hours and access to new hires was accepted without issue.  
The House also proposed an article on discipline an steps for formal discipline, but the Union will review and revise.  
​
The group also debated the idea of random COVID-19 testing for staff, particularly those frequently in the Capitol. While some supported the measure as a way to ensure safety during caucuses, others raised concerns about the logistical challenges and effectiveness, considering previous experiences with testing centers. The session concluded with a follow-up on coalition dates and the mention that only one more non-economic proposal remains to be addressed. 
 ​
Updated as of August 19, 2024
House Democratic Bargaining Update – August 19, 2024
Bargaining Session Highlights:
  • Union Rights & Shop Stewards: Discussions focused on the role of shop stewards. The House indicated a willingness to strike the ratio for shop stewards but suggested only releasing one shop steward at a time. Concerns about representation in disputes were raised, with the Union and the House agreeing on the importance of ensuring every employee’s right to representation.
  • Non-Discrimination Policy: The bargaining team takes non-discrimination seriously, adding that bullying as a priority issue.
  • Professional Growth Review: The preference was expressed for addressing professional growth in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), favoring it over formal contract language right now.
  • Training & Employee Development: Concerns were raised by the House about the aspirational language in the current Union proposal and cited budget constraints. There was agreement on incorporating training during work hours but disagreement over dedicating a full day for contract bargaining agreement training and discussion of changes.
  • Telework: The discussion reflected current practices with allowances for telework. However, concerns were raised about potential disparities if members are given discretion to allow telework for Legislative Assistants (LAs).
  • Hiring Practices: An MOU was proposed to facilitate more conversations around hiring. The team agreed on the importance of posting language and internal candidate interviews but sought more clarity and discussion.
  • Inclement Weather Policy: There was a detailed conversation around the policy, emphasizing employee safety and the need for clear communication during severe weather events.
  • Final Thoughts: The session concluded with a sense of progress and shared ground on many issues, though some topics will require further discussion.
Updated as of August 15, 2024
​Democratic Senate Bargaining Update - August 15, 2024
​
Bargaining Begins:
The bargaining process kicked off with a comprehensive, though bare-bones, collective bargaining agreement presented by the Senate. The proposal covered several key areas included Union Recognition, Non-discrimination & Workplace Behavior, Grievance Procedure, Legal Defense and Entire Agreement articles.
 
Senate Facilities & Operations Committee (F&O Committee) Concerns:
Your Union expressed discomfort with the internal nature of the F&O Committee handling grievances, especially if the grievance involves committee members. The Senate noted that the Senate operates under different labor laws and that traditional workplace precedents might not apply, creating a level of discomfort with third-party involvement.
 
Next Steps:
The next bargaining session is scheduled for next week. 
House Democratic Bargaining Session Summary - August 14, 2024 

Key Agreements and Discussions: 

Preamble and Union Recognition: Both sides reached tentative agreements (TAs) on these points early in the session. 
Union Rights and Activities: The Union raised concerns about limiting the number of stewards. Management inquired if removing this limit would cause issues, and the Union emphasized that it typically involves one steward per issue and it’s goal is to spread the work out so it wont impact employees workload. 

Hiring and Appointments: The Union introduced a revised proposal, highlighting the need for internal candidate pools and creating pipelines for employee mobility. Management expressed concerns about potential delays with rigid processes, emphasizing the importance of flexibility in hiring, but does feel there could be common ground in this article. 

Employee Development and Flexibility: The Union sought flexibility in scheduling and discussed how to incorporate resources for employee development. Management pointed out potential cost implications and emphasized the need for balance between flexibility and fairness. 
Grievance Procedure: The discussion explored the role of the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) in arbitration, with Management appreciating the innovative approach. 

Remote Work and Off-Duty Conduct: The Union proposed maintaining current remote work options with considerations for session-specific needs. The Union also introduced language regarding off-duty conduct, aiming to protect employees' personal lives from unnecessary scrutiny. 
​
Closing: The session ended with an agreement to reconvene on Monday, allowing time for both sides to consider the proposals and continue discussions. 
This session reflected ongoing negotiations, with both parties showing a willingness to explore middle ground on key issues while maintaining open and constructive dialogue. 
Update as of August 13, 2024

Higher Education Bargaining Update - August 13, 2024
Bargaining Session Overview:
Key Updates:
  1. Article 7 – Hours of Work:
    The union will resubmit a proposal to better define "extraordinary hours" and address workload issues, especially considering the upcoming shift of many members to overtime eligibility. The goal is to protect employees from being overworked.
  2. Article 13 – Sick Leave Verification:
    Discussions centered on the requirement for sick leave verification and who bears the cost of doctor's visits. The union proposed a reimbursement system for doctor visits, when necessary, especially for cases where timely medical attention is challenging.
  3. Emergency Leave:
    A proposal for emergency leave aims to prevent illness spreading on campuses, particularly for new employees who don’t have leave when they are starting out. The union previously had proposed five days of emergency leave, no counter back form the State.
  4. Article 18 – Miscellaneous Leave:
    The union seeks to increase personal leave from one day to three days upon hire, to support new employees lacking leave balances. The State returned with shifting two personal days to be available to new hires in be used in lieu of sick leave.
  5. Natural Disaster Leave:
    The union introduced a revised proposal for Natural for Disaster Leave in lieu of Wildfire Leave, expanding it to include various types of disasters, not just wildfires. This includes provisions for extended leave and shared leave options for affected employees.
  6. Article 26 – Relocation and Use of Vehicles:
    Updates to the proposal include modifications to ORCA card benefits, with a focus on budget and feasibility. ORCA cards would be considered a subsidy rather than a universal benefit and the State agreed to reevaluate.
  7. Article 45 – Seniority:
    A revised proposal on seniority includes portable service across institutions, benefiting part-time employees transitioning to new classifications.
  8. Article 39 – Bargaining Leave:
    The proposal for bargaining leave has been adjusted from 11 days to 9 days, reflecting the actual usage and need for more bargaining time.
  9. Article 50 – Mandatory Subjects:
    ​The union seeks clearer language on mandatory subjects for bargaining, aiming for better examples and explanations in the CBA. However, the State feels the language needs to be felt vague due to the variable nature of changes in the workplace.
Discussion Highlights:
  • Wildfire Leave: The State team noted that revising wildfire leave language would require more time that they aren’t willing to allocate the resources to evaluate the Union’s proposal.
  • Economic vs. Non-Economic Items: The State emphasized the need to address economic issues, with a focus on closing non-economic items. There was a discussion on prioritizing economic gains, with the union stressing the importance of improving workplace conditions if salary increases are not feasible.
  • General Sentiments: There is an ongoing concern about the adequacy of compensation and the state’s financial constraints. The union expressed frustration over perceived delays and insufficient progress on both non-economic and economic matters.
Next Steps:
  • Continued discussions on non-economic and economic proposals.
  • Further negotiation on specific leave provisions and classification adjustments.
  • Anticipated "last best and final" offers from the State in the next session.

Quote of the day: “We shouldn't be asked to bend over a barrel and told to relax.” – Lance Levesen, Skagit Valley College
Update as of August 9, 2024

We are making an impact with our letters, keep it up!
​
SBCTC wants your Administrators to ignore you

The State Board of Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) sent a message to all college leadership, asking them to ignore our members and claiming that any response to their staff would result in the WPEA filing a ULP (Unfair Labor Practice). We have modified two of our letter templates which address college leadership to now include an introductory paragraph addressing what is said in the SBCTC letter. Below you can read the SBCTC letter and the response we have added to our template letters.

SBCTC Letter

Compensation proposals have been shared at both the Washington Federation of State Employees Higher Education (WFSE HE) and Washington State Public Employees Higher Education (WPEA HE) tables. State law governing civil service requires bargaining to be completed, agreements ratified and submitted to OFM by October 1st.

WPEA is engaged in a letter writing campaign.  WFSE is engaged in other campaign measures (i.e. contact the governor, petition signing, and other possible activities) in response to bargaining thus far.

I wanted to give you a heads-up and urge caution in responding to these letters or other campaign activities. In the past, a sympathetic response to these kinds of communications (in writing or in person) have resulted in the filing of unfair labor practices, hearings and, in some cases, findings. If you get questions from staff about coalition bargaining and/or the compensation proposals, below are some statements/information that may be useful in navigating conversations.  Please note these are not intended to be used as written responses and you are not required to respond to letters you have received.  I would caution you not to respond to letters from classified union leaders or staff and/or letters you receive from other colleges.


  *   As provided in state law, we have chosen to bargain as a coalition. Bargaining is done at one table for consistency across the colleges and with general government for employees represented by the WPEA and the WFSE. As such, bargaining is going on now and I cannot comment on what is happening at the table. Our college is represented by the Office of Financial Management for bargaining.
  *   I encourage you to contact your union if you have any questions or concerns.
  *   If you get questions about how the faculty, exempt staff or non-represented employees will be treated:  State law provides for faculty bargaining to be done separately (exempt staff if represented) and their contract negotiations are not necessarily influenced by what happens at other bargaining tables.
  *   We value the work and dedication you provide to the college.

WPEA response as an introduction in Higher Education letter templates

I am aware that the State Board of Technical and Community Colleges (SBCTC) sent out an email encouraging you to ignore this communication.  Ignoring classified staff is the same advice that SBCTC and OFM have been giving to the College’s for decades – classified staff believe that it is time to stop ignoring us as an employee group and start putting action behind the narrative that you “value the work and dedication we provide to the college.”  Classified staff are tired of being ignored and continuing to do so will result in increased attempts to get a response from our leadership.  WPEA cannot, and will not, file an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) if you respond to my communication.  OFM is your exclusive bargaining representative – they work for you; you don’t work for them.  Therefore, you are complicit in their actions at the bargaining table. ​
Update as of August 8, 2024

General Government Bargaining - August 8, 2024

The General Government (GG) Bargaining team convened on August 8, for another crucial round of negotiations. 
Key Issues Discussed 


Email/Letter Writing Campaign Concerns: 
The session opened with a discussion on the ongoing letter writing campaign that has caused some unrest among the General Government managers.  


Revised Compensation Proposal
The State did revise their compensation proposal to 2% in 2025 and 0% 2026


Rest and Recuperation (R&R) Days: 
A significant portion of the discussion centered around Article 7, particularly the complexities surrounding Rest and Recuperation (R&R) days. The bargaining team highlighted the confusion regarding how R&R days are treated when they fall on a regularly scheduled day off. There was a consensus that further clarification is needed, with the State committing to provide a proposal soon. 
 
Sick Leave Verification: 
The team delved into the contentious issue of medical verification for sick leave exceeding three days, as outlined in Article 12. The Union raised concerns about the lack of clarity in the language and the potential for it to lead to corrective action against employees who do not seek medical treatment for conditions like the flu. The bargaining team argued for more flexibility and consideration of real-world scenarios where medical verification may not be readily available. 
 
Definitions and Leave Provisions: 
Further discussions included proposed changes to the definition of family in Article 12, with the removal of binary terms like "husband" and "wife" to ensure inclusivity. The bargaining team also addressed bereavement leave, vaccination leave, and the adequacy of leave provisions during emergencies like wildfires. The Union emphasized the need for a more comprehensive approach to leave policies, especially in times of crisis, to include the advantages of shared leave. 
 
Salary Schedule and Classification Issues: 
Salary discrepancies were a major point of contention, particularly concerning the start of the salary schedule. The Union criticized the current approach, pointing out that the math does not add up and stated a 3.5% increase to the general wage schedule to address the issue for the proposed $18 starting minimum wage for it to be correct. Bargaining team members also added that recruitment and retention are suffering due to inadequate compensation, which is negatively impacting the state’s ability to not only serve its residents but to collect the taxes to keep the state running. 
 
Lump Sum Payments and Additional Proposals: 
The session also touched on the MOU regarding lump sum payments for WSSB and CDHY employees. The State presented a proposal that would provide lump sum payments, conditional upon the bargaining team dropping other proposals. The bargaining team expressed a desire for further discussions to address workload issues. 
 
Looking Ahead 
As the bargaining session wrapped up, there was a clear acknowledgment of the significant work that remains. The bargaining team remains committed to ensuring that state employees are adequately compensated and supported in their roles. However, there is growing frustration with the pace of negotiations and the perceived lack of genuine engagement from the State’s representatives. As the deadline approaches, all eyes will be on the outcomes of these critical discussions. 

Stay tuned for further updates on the General Government Bargaining sessions. 

Update as of August 7, 2024

Higher Education Bargaining - August 6, 2024

In the latest higher education bargaining session, both the State and the Union addressed several critical topics, striving to find common ground on numerous key articles.  
 
Defining Mandatory Subjects 
The discussion kicked off with proposing only some definitions for "mandatory subjects”. The Union appreciated the language but expressed concerns about the need for practical examples to avoid future disputes, which the Union originally proposed; aiming to mitigate misunderstandings and prevent costly Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) disputes. 


Bereavement and Leave Policies 
On Article 18, the State proposed adding bereavement leave for pregnancy loss, vaccination leave, and wildfire disaster leave, emphasizing the need for flexibility and statewide applicability. The Union appreciated the inclusion but sought clarity on the implementation of vaccination leave, particularly its duration and applicability beyond COVID-19. 


Extraordinary Hours and Compensation 
Discussions revolved around defining "extraordinary hours." The Union voiced concerns over burnout from unfilled vacancies and the lack of long-term plans to fill positions, which could overburden current employees. The State declined to define extraordinary hours within the contract, citing flexibility under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). 


Technology Reimbursement and Seniority Calculations 
The State denied proposals for technology reimbursement, arguing the availability and current usage of tokens. The Union requested a list of colleges using tokens, noting functionality issues with certain devices. 


Compensation and Wage Increases 
Compensation discussions under Article 42 saw the Union proposing a 26% wage increase over 2 years, criticizing the state's previous offer as insufficient. The State cited budget constraints and over spending issues. 


Turnover and Burnout 
The union highlighted ongoing challenges with turnover and burnout, especially in colleges without established policies. The union expressed frustration over perceived inaction on wage increases and the lack of significant benefits for employees.  


Next Steps 
The State plans to provide additional responses and clarification on outstanding questions in the next session, while the Union intended to gather turnover data for each position and prepare detailed rationale for proposed adjustments. 
​

As the bargaining process continues, both teams aim to refine proposals and seek common ground, addressing pressing employee needs and organizational constraints.  However, once again this session has further frustrated the bargaining team and are looking for demand for action. On Wednesdays, wear blue to support your teams - Tell the State to make Public Employees the Priority! 
Update as of August 2, 2024
Legislative Democratic House Bargaining - From August 2, 2024

The latest bargaining session between the House and WPEA session opened with a handful of employer proposals.
 
Limiting Union Representatives
A significant point of contention arose over proposing a limit on union representatives per bargaining unit employees. Your union argued against this limit, emphasizing the value of having more shop stewards for better education and accessibility for members. The employer countered by suggesting a lesser number of stewards, citing concerns over potential disruptions if too many stewards were on away simultaneously.

Union Information and Material Distribution
Discussions turned to union information requests, with the employer suggesting that the union should help cover costs if these requests become too expensive. There was also a debate on defining "off-duty" times for distributing union materials, with lunch breaks and other non-work periods being considered.
 
Grievance Procedures and Arbitration
The grievance procedure saw some agreement, but concerns were raised about the employer proposed process. WPEA emphasized the need for an outside arbitrator to ensure fairness, a point the employer acknowledged but noted as outside their comfort zone.
 
Internal Hiring and Retention Issues
Internal hiring practices and retention were hot topics. Participants discussed the lack of enticement for internal candidates and the importance of leveraging institutional knowledge, as there is currently no system for internal hires. While the employer expressed desire to prioritize internal hires, they felt that it wasn’t necessary to enshrine it in the CBA.
 
Addressing Collective Bargaining Concerns
The session acknowledged that existing policies might not be effective, driving the need for collective bargaining. WPEA highlighted the difficulty in presenting a minimal contract to members, stressing the importance of visible improvements to support and retention.
 
Next Steps
The session concluded with plans for further discussions with additional dates added. Both sides acknowledged the importance of making tangible improvements to support employee satisfaction and retention.

Update as of August 2, 2024

General Government Update - From Bargaining August 1

The General Government Bargaining session began with a comprehensive PowerPoint presentation focusing on the upcoming budget.

The initial part of the session involved the State detailing the proposals on the table, including a class and compensation review is now scheduled for August 8. Your Union emphasized the need to address as many state proposals as possible within the day as the time for bargaining counts down.  You Union also asked for why was there a delay with Department of Natural Resource Bargaining from the State, and even though we have proposed having a special table for DNR outside of fire-season, the State insists on having discussions during the summer that inevitably get postponed.

Key Points Covered:
  1. Article 7 - Inclusivity and Clarifications:
    • The State discussed agreements with WPEA about including CVEO3s in Article 7. They also suggested modifications to Article 12.1 to ensure clarity and alignment with other general government collective bargaining agreements (CBAs).
  2. Sick Leave and Emergency Procedures:
    • Changes were proposed to Article 12.2, emphasizing the need to reference the WAC for emergency declarations and expanded terminology for better clarity. The proposal included more specific guidelines for absences exceeding three days.
  3. Miscellaneous and Vaccine-Related Leave:
    • Article 17 updates were presented, including provisions for vaccine-related leave. The State wanted to clarify that "reasonable leave amounts" would be determined by the employer, sparking a discussion on expectations during declared emergencies.
  4. Military and Bereavement Leave Adjustments:
    • Proposed changes to military leave aimed at improving clarity and extending bereavement leave to five days, including provisions for pregnancy loss.
  5. Wildfire Disaster Leave Proposal:
    • The proposal for wildfire disaster leave prompted questions about the criteria for declaring a state of emergency, with discussions centering around the role of the Governor in such declarations.
  6. Recruitment, Retention, and Competitive Wages:
    • Concerns were raised about the state’s strategies for recruitment and retention, particularly regarding competitive wages and compensation packages. Participants highlighted the challenges faced by employees and the need for more robust solutions. The State at this time shared no plans to address recruitment or retention.
  7. Classification and Targeted Increases:
    • The State addressed various leave provisions and classification updates, proposing targeted increases and adjustments for specific job classifications. Documents were presented to address wage compression and inversion impacts, with emphasis on those affected by the proposed $18 starting wage.
Conclusion:
The session concluded with a commitment to continue addressing these critical issues in future bargaining meetings. The next session will focus on further clarifications and follow-ups to the proposals discussed.  Additionally, the same questions resonated with the General Government table; “When will public Employees be the priority” and "How many job classifications is the state going to be happy with paying minimum wage or just a couple of dollars above?”
Update as of July 31, 2024

Higher Education Update - From bargaining July 30
At the beginning of bargaining your Union highlighted the need for comprehensive documentation, training, and planning; citing an incident at Clark College to emphasize the urgency of consistent public safety practices across colleges. Your union and bargaining team advocated for a global discussion to understand and address these discrepancies. 

The state acknowledged the intent to understand best practices but expressed concerns about potential encroachments on management rights. Courtney Braddock, bargaining team member from Clark College, stressed the importance of direct advocacy for safety concerns to ensure transparency and avoid negative publicity. She shared past experiences where LMCC attempts were ignored until media involvement prompted action, underscoring the need for open discussions. 

The state proposed raising the minimum wage to $18 an hour with classification increases. This adjustment aims to stay ahead of the Washington minimum wage act, which mandates annual increases until 2028. The session included implications for various classifications but lacked detailed discussions on the rationale behind the $18 starting wage. Additionally, the team felt that $18 wasn’t enough and that proposal needs to be better thought out by the state. 

Despite the state's stance that a 10% raise across the board would be too costly, bargaining team members expressed frustration over recurring issues with classification adjustments and sought clearer justification for the proposed changes.  Some of the questions asked where: How many classifications is the state going to be happy with paying minimum wage?  How the classifications are chosen, when others were not proposed? And how does the state justify paying less than Jack-n-the-Box?  

The state assured attendees that their concerns would be addressed, emphasizing the need for constructive dialogue to resolve systemic problems, however the lack of resolution and answers for questions left a bad taste in the bargaining team members mouths.  
​​

The bargaining team is seeking ways to provoke formal action and needs your help! The letter writing campaign starts today – and please submit your letters by August 15th!  
Update as of July 29, 2024

Our next bargaining dates are:

Higher Education: July 30, August 6, August 13, August 21
General Government: August 1, August 8, August 27
Senate: July 30, August 15, August 29
House: August 2, August 14, August 19
Healthcare Coalition Bargaining: August 5
Update as July 24, 2024
We've been actively engaged in negotiations and have recently submitted compensation proposals for both Higher Education (HE) and General Government (GG). Here's a quick update on the progress:
  • Higher Education (HE): Our proposal was met with a relatively receptive and sympathetic response. We expect a counteroffer from HE on July 30th.
  • General Government (GG): As anticipated, GG maintained their usual approach and responses. We expect their counteroffer on August 1st.

Recent and Upcoming Sessions
  • HDC Session: We had our first session last week, which went relatively well.
  • SDC Session: For both groups, the primary focus remains on compensation/pay equity and job security, as much as we're able to bargain on that front.

Details of Our Proposals
In our initial compensation proposals at both tables, we highlighted:
  • Tying Future Increases to CPI: Ensuring that compensation adjustments are aligned with the Consumer Price Index, similar to the approach taken with minimum wage.
  • Targeted Increases: Proposing specific increases for targeted classifications to address particular needs.
    ​
Current Status of COLA Talks
Initial discussions around Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) have not been favorable. The State's sentiments being that a COLA, even one similar to last time, just wouldn't be in the cards. We are continuing to advocate for fair adjustments that reflect the economic realities faced by our members.

​Member Engagement Initiatives
To strengthen our position and ensure our voices are heard, we are launching several member engagement initiatives:
  • Postcard Submission: We are asking members to submit postcards to express their support and highlight their concerns.
  • Letter Writing Campaign: We will be launching a letter writing campaign shortly to further advocate for our proposals and priorities.

​Your participation and support are crucial as we move forward in these negotiations. Stay tuned for further updates and ways to get involved!
Update as June 28, 2024
It has been a whirlwind month of bargaining.  Although during bargaining we can’t get into very specific details, we did want to share an update of main concerns and next steps.  The fiscal forecast and compensatory items will be addressed in July. 


Within Higher Education safety and security concerns are key. 
The union highlighted discrepancies in campus safety measures, citing examples where budget cuts led to insufficient security coverage, such as at Olympic College, where budget constraints might revert security staffing to inadequate levels.  The union discussed the need to address ongoing safety concerns, with an emphasis on updating safety plans regularly and involving staff in the planning process. 
The session ended with the understanding that several proposals require further discussion and refinement. Both parties agreed to continue brainstorming and to bring forward more concrete suggestions in future sessions. The bargaining process is ongoing, with both sides committed to finding mutually acceptable solutions to the issues raised. 
The Union currently has about 18 articles open. 
General Government is looking for really diverse changes. 
The union highlighted the importance of timely discussions, especially considering the ongoing fire season and when our schools break for the summer.  The need for those members to bargain earlier in the year due to their jobs was discussed and the Union is hopefully we are on the path to getting the issue resolved. 
The union representatives emphasized the need for oversight and inspections to ensure workplace safety. The state acknowledged the concerns and discussed the procedural aspects of involving L&I. 
Additionally, large changes have been brought forward by the Union for Washington State Patrol and the CO3s and CVEO3s.  
The bargaining session ended with both parties agreeing to continue discussions and addressing pending items in upcoming meetings. 
The Union currently has about 16 articles open. 
We are currently in the beginning stages of this session. As we move forward, we are hopeful that our issues will continue to be addressed. 
Next Steps: In July we will be having very critical conversations surrounding pay, increases, adjustments and classification increases. The Union will work tirelessly to bargain as much as we can for our members.  
__ 
 If you would like to show your support – check out our updated bargaining webpage! We have posters, postcards, helpful ideas, and how you can get involved. We want to hear from you, have an idea to show your support? Let us know at [email protected]. 

Location

Contact Us