June 15, 2005

FIFTH INSTALLMENT OF RESPONSES TO MAPE SURVEY COMMENTS

It's unlawful to retaliate for use of FMLA ...

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 fourth installment.

*****

Comment: Sales/Corporate tax unit employees are treated differently than others in department on sick time policy while the FMLA is not being followed. Individuals are discriminated against based on their health. Employees are afraid to go to their doctors, physical therapists or surgeons for fear they will lose their flex time and get a lower rating on their reviews.

BH: This complaint comes from certain work units periodically due to managers who are not versed on Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provisions and therefore violate the act. MAPE managers and business agents are experts in the area of sick leave and its relationship to FMLA. No employee should feel threatened with repercussions if they take sick leave or are absent under FMLA. It is unlawful to retaliate or to lower performance reviews due to the use of FMLA. MAPE can intervene in such disparate or unlawful activity, but it is necessary that this office is contacted so that we can advise and counsel on these matters. Conversations with central office staff are confidential until YOU, after receiving advice, decide to take matters any further.

*****

Comment: My direct management is better than excellent. However, one of the commissioners took it upon herself to evaluate and change schedules for employees in our division. That level of micro-management from someone so far outside the actual work area was utterly ridiculous.

Comment: The state needs to get employees back to their appropriate levels. Due to layoffs and bumping, people are working out of their classifications, but these same people have stayed on as dedicated state of Minnesota employees with no promotions, pay increases but increased insurance costs.

Comment: Job stress is significant due to excessive work loads. There are interim programmatic changes to maximize access to new funding streams while the mental health system is redesigned. Position insecurity is resulting because we do not know how our jobs will change. We have been told we will need to interview again for redesigned positions. We do not know what the available positions will be, where they will be, which entities they will be attached to or even when the changes will occur.

BH: There are multiple processes in place within the contract to deal with all of the above matters so that employees can get more clear direction or discuss higher level management intervention issues, so that employees may get pay inequity information to their commissioner-level management, so that employees may discuss changes in direction or funding changes that are adversely impacting workloads or employee productivity, or so that they may bring to the forefront abusive and harassing behaviors. There is a vast amount of flexibility within the contract language to discuss virtually every issue that arises. It is important for employees to call this office and talk to their representatives rather than suffer through a miserable work environment that can be improved over time. Many employees wait far too long while issues become a personal crisis, resulting in sleepless nights, ill health, depression, loss of appetite, and so many more physical and psychological affects. MAPE has received calls when issues as described here have been ongoing for not months but, rather, for years. The longer employees allow these matters to go on, the longer it takes to resolve the practices when they are finally brought forward to this office.

*****

Comment: I am considering dropping from MAPE as a full member. I am extremely disappointed in MAPE. Being a member does not have any good advantages. So what if I can’t vote to strike or for MAPE officers. I get the same outcome whether I am a full member or a fair share.

Comment: Why do we need a union? The governor appropriates zero in his budget and that is what we settle on. Zero union dues needed. I heard that the year we went on strike we settled for less than the original offer. Obtain a better contract and maybe us fair shares might join again. Signed, a long-time union member and a long-lost union member.

BH: These comments were heard a lot more before the Pawlenty administration came into power. Many employees are realizing that it is not necessarily money that Gov. Pawlenty is interested in when it comes to the changes he desires in the delivery of state services. The governor has always been interested in privatizing state services, leaving many hundreds and perhaps thousands of state employees without jobs. It matters not to him whether privatizing costs more than state employees do. Regardless of how many times MAPE and many other organizations prove that state employees are more efficient, effective and cost-beneficial (as it should be) than private-sector services, the governor pushes on. Luckily, through MAPE member and staff/lobbyist efforts these job-outsourcing initiatives in the form of bills have been killed in the Legislature. When the membership voted to reject and authorize a strike during the 2003 round of negotiations, the contract offer from the governor increased by more than $10 million. The effect of the 2001 strike is that the governor now knows that when a contract is voted down that a strike or withholding services is also authorized. When the membership voted to reject and authorize a strike in the 2001 negotiation cycle, the contract was worth more than $13 million more post-strike than pre-strike. That vote to reject has meaning whether one wants to admit it or not. One could reverse the comments above by asking: Why be a fair-share contributor knowing that whatever the governor places on the table it is automatically accepted, since it can’t be refused through the vote?

*****

Comment: Propose early retirement for employer savings. New staff could be hired at a rate of 1.5 new staff to 1 retiree.

BH: MAPE has presented the above fact to the administration several times but it has made little difference to these representatives. The chief of staff for the governor has stated that he does not want to "give" anything to state employees who are going to retire anyway. However, without the incentive they will not retire. That fact is ignored. It does not have to make sense – it is just the present administration's attitude.

*****

Comment: I just read some of the comments and I wanted to say I agree with you. I think things would be a lot worse without the union.  I think the strike was crucial to future negotiations. Keep up the good work. I don't always agree with the union, but I think we are better off with one.

Comment: Thanks for your responses to survey comments and questions in the article that was posted on the MAPE website on April 26.

Both the comments and your responses are interesting.

I would like to submit the comment that I think MAPE does a terrific job! I truly believe that we would be much further behind without MAPE. Although we may not have gained much in the last few contracts, I do think the "line" was held as well as was possible, under great pressure from the "powers that be". Also, because of negotiating efforts prior to 2000, we had gained rights that continue to be the bedrock of our contract.

Thanks for your efforts and the efforts of all of the MAPE staff! (My guess is, that you folks are not told that enough!!)

Comment:  It sickens me that we have so many whiners in the union. I understand what the unions in this country are dealing with because many of our members at election time voted for candidates who care little about the union. For those who elected officials who are not supportive, they need to be quiet because they got what they asked for. I am neither democrat nor republican; however, when it comes to employees benefiting, it has been historically the democrats who are sympathetic. Republicans are traditionally for those who do not struggle financially rather than for those who do. The bottom line is if you want better deals, elect those who agree. Whining will not accomplish anything. To those who refuse or have not elected to be involved in the process either by contacting representatives, getting involved with the union, or being stuck on issues that really have no business in contract negotiations - either put up or shut up. Unions are only as strong as the membership!!!!! If our union is weak, then the membership allowed it to become so.

*****