March 15, 2005
SECOND INSTALLMENT OF SURVEY COMMENT RESPONSES
MAPE forms inequity committee, more responses to survey comments
In an effort to better engage the membership in the negotiations survey process, Bob Haag, assistant executive director and negotiations coordinator/consultant, will prepare responses to the various comments that were placed on the surveys. This will be done over time as installments so that the information is not too overwhelming. This is the second installment.
*****
Comment: I recently became a licensed psychologist, but very little financial recognition is given to this change. A salary that was quite competitive for an unlicensed person is not competitive for a licensed psychologist. There should be some venue to renegotiate your salary when someone dramatically upgrades his or her skills. If such an avenue exists, clear info regarding this procedure would be helpful.
BH: MAPE has formed an inequity committee for this negotiations cycle. This committee will be accepting inequity requests from members who can show that their salary is not commensurate with the training required. This would also include positions being vacant for long periods of time and that require much more than entry-level salaries in order to attract new employees. This psychologist issue has already been brought to the attention of MAPE. Any psychologist who would want to join in to justify this inequity request may contact me at bhaag@mape.org
Comment: You can’t consider these items individually. Increase in benefit costs would be reasonable if salary increases. No increase in salary would be reasonable if no increase to benefits cost. Preferred last survey where we could rank priority of changes.
Comment: It is hard to rank things without some discussion. It would have helped if there had been some discussion/background in a local meeting.
Comment: The question about ranking medical costs is idiotic. What do you mean? No wonder we get our heads handed to us every two years.
BH: The queries that ask for some very difficult responses to what benefit changes are acceptable or not, was no doubt challenging. What was being sought here is where the majority stands at the point in time this survey was sent out and based upon employees’ past personal experiences and past personal expenditures. As these needs are then translated into cumulative data, the Negotiations Team is able to discern what would best serve the membership at large.
Comment: Please focus MAPE’s attention on majority issues this round – not like in 2001 where we negotiated for same-sex benefits, a very minority issue!
BH: There are many members who have strong beliefs and who vocalize those beliefs on both sides of this issue. As a representative organization, not unlike a representative governmental entity, MAPE does not have the luxury of deciding what gets discussed and what does not. The members in this organization have a legal right to equal representation despite who they are or what they believe. The MAPE elected leadership endeavors to listen to and tries to understand all viewpoints. MAPE certainly did negotiate domestic partner insurance and related benefits in 2001. However, the current administration has rendered this matter moot due to legislative language preventing these insurance benefits from being negotiated.
Comment: I heard from top management that the current administration did NOT even try to negotiate health-care rates after the first proposal by the providers. (Negotiation was done by all previous administrations.)
BH: Since no union insurance-bargaining coalition member has been allowed to view these negotiations in the past, this statement cannot be specifically verified. That belief certainly does exist, however, among some coalition-member unions. That is why the unions have been pushing to be more directly involved with these insurance-provider negotiations to include a union-coalition representative taking part in those meetings. This demand has been strongly resisted by the past and current governors.
Comment: Allow health club fees to be considered health care (preventive).
BH: Some providers have come forward with up to a $20 per month break on approved health-organization memberships that would encourage exercise and other beneficial health activities. These benefits were built into the administrative-expense side of the providers’ ledgers, where the provider itself keeps the premium funds and pays the medical expenses. The state of Minnesota is a self-insuring employer -- meaning that it has established its own trust fund to deposit collected premiums, and then pays employee and dependent medical expenses from that employer-held trust fund. Therefore, any cost related to this type of benefit must be negotiated against other cost items within the contract. Since the governor’s negotiating team would have no way to know how many employees and families would participate, there is a good potential that such a benefit would be over-charged against other targeted priority items. A vast majority of this bargaining unit is placing the most priority on requests such as across-the-board increases and the bare minimum of insurance increases.
Comment: As a professional, I don’t see the need for a union. I am more than able to negotiate my own contract, salary and benefits. I have done in the past and will do it in the future. Pay for a damn stamp too, tightwads!
BH: This is not an uncommon statement. The employees in the MAPE professional bargaining unit are generally highly educated and they have additional certifications, licensure, and registrations that provide for high levels of credibility and recognition. For that reason, it can be argued, professionals as well as other contributors to citizen services should have considerable influence over their employment terms and conditions. The Legislature recognized this need by passing the Public Employee Labor Relations Act (PELRA). This gave public employees in Minnesota the collective right to organize, negotiate contracts and have a means by which to enforce the negotiated contract. This decision, to become a bargaining unit, was made by a majority of your peers when they sought recognition under PELRA. That is precisely why you are able to have any legal right to share a contract with the governor. Without this law, there is no negotiating. Whatever the administration in power says – goes, period. A vast majority of your peers have clearly stated that this is unacceptable. I addressed the stamp issue in my first installment.
Comment: Send Pawlenty packing.
Comment: Very low confidence in this union!!
Comment: Once again, I am not sure whom I hate more right now: Tim Pawlenty or my "union." You continue to protect the incompetent and insubordinate; I am a professional. I don’t need a union to protect me!
BH: The MAPE/State of Minnesota contract provides language to improve or remove the incompetent employee and to change the behavior of those that would choose to be insubordinate. If that incompetence or that insubordinate behavior does not change, discharge is warranted. Supervisors must use their authority to communicate clear requirements to their subordinates. The union neither protects from nor condones such inadequacies or bad behaviors, whether the employee is newer to state service or whether the employee has many years as a state employee. The union does hold supervisors accountable to their responsibilities to adhere to the MAPE/State of Minnesota contract language when directing, reviewing and disciplining employees. This language by no means ties anyone’s hands in order to supervise effectively.
Continuation: You also heavily favor the oldest workers, who make up a disproportionately high percentage of workers – mostly because of your stupid seniority policies that encourage mediocrity.
BH: Seniority was negotiated to provide for some order and fairness when layoffs are necessary. The majority of your peers clearly believe that those who have satisfactorily contributed more of their work life to the employer should receive some recognition for that when budgets are cut. As explained above, seniority is not about mediocrity, but rather seniority is about preventing chaos during layoffs.
Comment: Need ad campaign that outlines what state employees do for the average citizen. Need to show citizens that we are working for them!
Continuation: and then fail to convince the average Minnesotan that our work is important and should be fairly compensated. You are also out of touch with the economic hardships faced by most workers in this state (especially in health care) and thus cannot understand why people feel no sympathy for us.
BH: Unfortunately, it takes more money than any of the unions have to continually take this message to the media. Mouthpieces and media ads are generally ignored or mistrusted by the public anyway. The best spokespeople, for contacting the media and for contacting the Legislature, are the MAPE bargaining unit employees who can speak from their hearts and from their experiences. Contacting your legislators (either party) within your districts and writing letters to the editor in large numbers would create more influence than any of us would ever imagine possible. It is important, however, to identify yourself and to speak up as a MAPE member for all Minnesota workers who are struggling. If we speak up only for ourselves, our message will likely create animosity. MAPE supports fair rights, a fair living wage and critically needed insurance benefits for all Minnesota workers. It is the right thing to do!
Comment: There has never been a pay period I have NOT had overtime. I am required to do on-call over and above my 40 hours week. (96 hours of on call in the last pay period). This is going to continue to be an issue, especially as regional treatment centers close. Can you PLEASE work at getting us time and one-half overtime and double time for holidays?
BH: If one does not receive time and one half overtime, the employee would be in an exempt class. Both exempt and non-exempt classification employees qualify for on-call pay when they are asked to be available to the employer outside of their normal work hours. You must be paid for 15 minutes of every hour that you are in on-call status up to a maximum of four (4) hours daily. This is an issue that can be resolved through your business agent. The governor’s negotiators have flatly refused to allow straight time overtime when exempt employees work over 80 hours. There is no chance that 1 ½ time for working over 40 hours plus double time on holidays for exempt employees will become a reality.
Comment: I have concerns about the new MDG Building and the lack of parking, and no talk of a shuttle service.
BH: Over the next 12 to 18 months, hundreds of state employees will be moving from various locations to inner-city St. Paul and to Capitol Complex locations. There is great concern, because it appears parking will not be nearly sufficient to handle this new influx of state workers. MAPE, along with other unions, are meeting with various management groups to determine how this issue is going to be addressed. Contact your business agent for updates about these talks or to express your interest to participate. Shuttle service has been negotiated in past moves and that suggestion, along with many others, are being discussed in these meetings.
