Human Services Meet & Confer minutes | Minnesota Association of Professional Employees

Publish Date

February 26, 2020

Committees

DHS

December 5, 2019 - MAPE Meet & Confer

Minutes

Introductions

In Attendance for MAPE

Tonja Rolfson, CO
Emily Waymire, CO
Whitney Terrill, CO
Susan Hall, CO
Lynn Butcher, DCT
Jeremy Gwilt, DCT
Debbie Prokopf, MAPE
Caitlin Reid, MAPE
Sarah Sinderbrand, CO
Emily Swan, CO

In Attendance for Management

Chuck Johnson, Deputy Commissioner
Marshall Smith, Health System CEO
Dan Pollock, Assistant Commissioner
Tom Moss, Assistant Commissioner
Stacy Twite, Assistant Commissioner
Lisa Bayley, Acting Assistant Commissioner
Connie Jones, Director of HR
Sean Tolefree, HR Manager
Jim Yates, HR Manager
Shireen Gandhi

HR Dashboard; sneak peak, not ready for prime time yet J

Preview provided

Student Loan Reimbursement (up to $5000)

MAPE:

Sarah Sinderbrand (MAPE, Local 2101) presented the issue. Since MAPE’s tentative agreement was struck, there has been great interest and excitement in the student loan repayment reimbursement language among DHS workers. Many DHS workers hold degrees, often advanced degrees, in public policy, health, mental health, social work, etc, that they use every day in their jobs. That investment has resulted in many DHS workers carrying tens of thousands (and in some cases, hundreds of thousands) of dollars in student loan debt. Student loan payment reimbursement would have a huge positive impact in DHS workers’ lives, enabling us to grow and strengthen our families. One member commented that student loan payment reimbursement would “put some breathing room in our family budget and allow us to move from financially surviving to financially thriving.” Members have said this benefit would help them to build emergency savings, save for retirement, save for a down payment on a house, and complete other financial goals.

Many loan reimbursement/forgiveness resources are targeted to workers serving in rural areas and/or workers in certain licensed medical professions, for which only some DHS workers would qualify. DHS has also named the federal public service loan forgiveness program as a possible resource that state workers may be able to take advantage of. However, the program is so broken that so far over 99% of program applicants have been rejected. It is not a realistic solution for DHS employees.

DHS workers have trained hard to do our jobs. They care about serving the people of Minnesota and want to stay here. But, some members are considering finding other jobs that will either contribute towards their educational investment, or that pay wages high enough to make the student loan payments a more balanced cost of living. The state has to consider the possibility that we will lose good talent to the private sector over this issue. Implementing student loan repayment reimbursement would be an incredibly strong incentive to retain highly skilled, highly credentialed employees. Highly educated workers would compete to be here. DHS could be a talent magnet for the generations that will make up a greater and greater share of the workforce in the coming years: Millennials and Gen Z, who come with a strong drive and commitment to public service, but also a growing burden of student debt.

Questions:

1. 1. What will the application process look like?
  2. What criteria will be considered?
  3. What is the plan for communication regarding the availability of student loan reimbursement?
  4. What is the plan for providing written notices of approval and denials to applicants?

MAPE Meet and Confer would like a yearly report of the number of approvals and denials and the reason(s) for each.

Management:

We recognize this is a very popular incentive and is under consideration for FY20. As it stands today, there are approximately 1300 employees in the Central Office represented by MAPE who meet the length of service requirements. If all were to have student loans and submit a request for the full $5000 the total obligation would be up to $6,500,000. We are interested to know if MAPE has surveyed their members to find out how many people have student loans so we could have a sense staff interest, and if not, if this is something you would be willing to do. Also, if DHS were to offer student loan reimbursement this FY does MAPE have a recommendation on what preference is given for distribution recognizing there will be limited funds?

Pay Equity

MAPE:

Emily Swann (MAPE, Local 2101) represents a group of DHS attorneys who have been dealing with an inequitable compensation situation. Before April 2016, management could only offer compensation up to the fourth step in the pay range for new hire attorneys in legal positions (those requiring a law degree and bar licensure). In April 2016, DHS Human Resources (HR) implemented a “Legal Counsel” series compensation worksheet that allowed management to offer higher compensation to new hires based upon experience without special approval from HR. This resulted in new hires being paid significantly more than some of their attorney co-workers who were already working for DHS and had many more years’ experience. Negotiators sought to rectify this type of situation in the last bargaining session. The new MAPE contract, once in effect, will allow DHS to request that Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB) make a pay equity adjustment and advance incumbent employees within a range to maintain internal equity. Emily Swann reported that several attorneys will be making applications to HR for this pay equity adjustment and requested HR’s support..

Management:

(Handout and included at bottom of the minutes - Equity Adjustments FAQ). Requests will be reviewed for consideration. If a member believes their compensation is not equitable they may submit an email to Connie Jones (Connie.L.Jones@state.mn.us) with their name, employee ID, work location, job classification, and an explanation on why they think they are in an inequitable situation as compared to peers in the same job class. The explanation needs to be specific and provide details such as – what is the inequity? What are the names of the peers? Where do they work? What are their qualifications (education, training, experience) as compared to their own? How do they know? And other relevant information. HR will review and submit formal requests to MMB if supported by DHS management.

Collaborative Safety Initiative

Management:

DHS has contracted with the Collaborative Safety Institute to provide training on the field of Safety Science. In order to promote a culture in which we learn from mistakes, we must be willing to re-evaluate how our employee investigation, disciplinary system, quality assurance and internal audits fits into the equation. The Collaborative Safety Model focuses on three areas: (1) a culture of accountability, (2) a systemic method of learning, and (3) addressing underlying systemic issues.

The training includes a one day-Safety Leadership Institute for up to 24 executives, quarterly leadership labs for those who attend the Safety Leadership Institute, two-cohorts of Advanced Practical Training (up to 48 attendees) for HR and Compliance/Internal Audits/Quality Assurance staff, and eight orientation meetings to introduce frontline staff, supervisors, and our labor partners to safety science concepts, old view and new views of safety and how the agency is going to conduct critical incident reviews in the new learning model. Dates for the orientation sessions will be forthcoming.

Recruiting (up to $5000) and Referral (up to $1000) Incentives

Management:

This will be used on an as-needed basis for hard to fill positions. Referral incentives will be announced when a position is posted that is eligible for an incentive. In FY18/19, DCT paid out $355,000 in recruitment incentives and $11,600 in referral incentives.

Phased Retirements

Management:

(Handout and included at bottom of the minutes - Email to be sent to MAPE and MMA members). DHS was a part of the phased retirement pilot program and intends to continue use of the program. The email just handed out will go out to staff by the end of the week.

Safe Environments for Disclosure and Discussion

MAPE:

Tonja Rolfson (MAPE, Local 201) introduced the issue of “Safe Environments for Disclosure and Discussion.” The Meet and Confer process was established by the legislature under Minnesota Statutes § 179A.08, subdivision 1. The legislature recognized that “professional employees possess knowledge, expertise and dedication which is helpful and necessary to the operation and quality of public services and which may assist public employers in developing their policies.” One of the serious issues employees face is what to do when employees want to address departmental activity that does not follow the law. Employees need a safe environment to bring policy concerns to the Commissioner’s attention so that policy matters and activities that are concerning can be addressed internally and early on. When the environment is not responsive or does not feel safe for internal discussion, public displays of departmental dysfunction eventually happen as has been seen recently in the news and in the legislative auditor’s report. There need to be collaborative and cooperative ways for MAPE employees and management to recognize, describe and address concerning activities. The Meet and Confer forum can provide an opportunity for thoughtful disclosure and discussion. Additionally, involving MAPE at the ground level of plans to create processes that are responsive and that feel and are safe for employees will result in a better environment and a more vibrant workplace. Involving MAPE will let employees know processes are ones they should trust. To that end, MAPE asked the following questions:

What are the Department’s future plans for creating safe environments that promote disclosure and discussion?
How will MAPE be involved in those plans?
What is the Commissioner’s Advisory Panel? Will there be labor union representation on this panel?

Management:

Management shared a range of efforts underway to support safe environments for disclosure and discussion. Over the coming year, DHS is training staff in the Collaborative Safety model, which focuses on three areas: 1) a culture of accountability, 2) a systemic method of learning, and 3) addressing underlying systemic issues. The approach is to be tough on systems and processes, finding ways to improve them, instead of looking for individual fault as a first response to an issue. There will still be a need for employee investigations where actions warrant it, but the majority of employees come to DHS every day attempting to do their best to serve the state of Minnesota and this model will help us better support our employees in this work. DHS’ leadership was trained in this mode in November, with additional advanced practical trainings taking place in December and January for HR, Compliance Office, and DCT staff. Orientation trainings are being set up for the early part of 2020 for labor partners, employee resource groups, and all staff.

Earlier this year DHS launched an anonymous Hotline reporting web form. Anonymous reporters are given a unique number when they submit their report in case they want to follow up on their report. Because some anonymous reports don’t have enough specific information in them for investigators to properly investigate the report, they result in an “insufficient information” finding. The Compliance Office is looking into options for posting a list of “insufficient information” reports by their unique number so that reporters understand more information is needed to move forward.

In addition, the Compliance Office, HR and EOAD are working on updating investigation processes and opportunities to better support reporters to help them feel more comfortable coming forward and better supported when they do. Management will consult with labor during this process and will share the end result so that it is transparent to all staff.

It is not known if there will be labor union representation on the Commissioner’s Advisory Panel.

Tuition Reimbursement/Access to Professional Development Funds

Management:

requests from MAPE members:

19 MAPE members approved
9 denied. Reasons include:

Class term for a timeframe prior to policy effective date and the funding appropriation.
Forms were completed incorrectly - incorrect / missing information.
Degree is not related to the work of DHS or part of a degree program that is related to any occupation represented within the agency

Recruitment & Retention Priorities

MAPE Is there anything MAPE can do to support the agency’s retention and recruitment efforts?

Management:

Partnering with us to recruit for vacant positions.

Share contact info of community resources you know or work with where we can build a relationship to further our reach and expand employment opportunities to others.

MAPE: What are the DHS targets for recruitment and retention, especially across protected classes; Are there any protected classes that have not met their targets for recruitment and retention?

Management:

Handout and included at the bottom of the minutes - Affirmative Action Goal Report

MAPE: What are the main data sources the agency utilizes to track recruitment and retention?

Management:

The self-identified data collected in Recruiting Solutions/SEMA4

MAPE: What were some of the outcomes of the employee engagement survey that was completed last year? Is DHS using any information from the survey to inform its recruitment and retention efforts?

Management:

Outcomes / Findings identified from the October 2018 Employee Engagement Survey are:

- - - The statewide response rate for the survey was 52%. The Department of Human Services’ response rate was 50%.
    - Analysis of the compiled quantitative questions (25 statements in 4 theme areas) indicate:
89% of the respondents strive to do their best work every day (highest), and
31% of the respondents indicated that leaders make sufficient effort to get the opinions of people who work at our agency (lowest).
the remaining 23 questions fall in-between these two percentages (89% to 31%)– respondents agreeing with the question / statement.

We are still in the process of reviewing the 92 pages of comments (qualitative results), but the themes / categories identified thus far indicate areas of opportunity around staff input, career advancement, workload and professional development.

So to answer your question about recruitment and retention, the survey results indicate that:

54% of the respondents agreed with the statement that they would recommend DHS as a place to work,
49% of the respondents agreed with the statement that they are satisfied working at DHS, and
40% of the respondents agreed with the statement that they hardly ever think about leaving DHS for a job outside of state government.

We used all of the above information to identify one “strategy” of hosting focus groups around the state, asking DHS employees to volunteer to participate, to help identify the tools and resources they need to support and increase their “engagement” (including but not limited to providing input (being heard), career development and advancement, workload and professional development). Information gathered will / shall help identify additional strategies / plans to aid in recruitment and retention efforts.

Yes, DHS is using this information to inform its recruitment and retention efforts. This is in the works but not finalized yet. The agency’s strategic Plan includes “People” (3a) Action team of the Strategic Plan is reviewing and analyzing the employee engagement results and developing action oriented solutions to expand the agency’s recruitment and retention efforts.

MAPE: What is the status of the stay interview or exit interview process?

How are those efforts factoring into recruitment and retention efforts generally and especially for DHS staff who have protected class status?
Would DHS be open to MAPE stewards adding capacity to the exit interview processes?
How are those efforts factoring into recruitment and retention efforts generally and especially for DHS staff who have protected class status?
Would DHS be open to MAPE stewards adding capacity to the exit interview processes?

Management:

The exit survey was launched by MMB in January of 2019 to assess the employee experience working in state government. DHS provided MMB with suggested changes to the instrument which were accepted in June. Because of this, MMB relaunched a 2^nd version of the instrument July 1, 2019.

At this time MMB has not released a stay interview. DHS is in conversations with MMB to identify whether DHS can develop and facilitate its own stay interview process.

DHS Data and Goals: DHS, being the largest state agency, has a great opportunity to lead efforts in how we analyze the data received, and more importantly how we take action on what we learn. Since January, HR has been working closely with MMB and the DHS Office of Strategy and Performance to monitor data received, and to design a useful way to provide insights to DHS leaders.

As of November DHS has 232 responses to the exit survey, representing a response rate of 34% for all employees. The response percentage by race is around 35% white population and 32% non-white. The goal is to increase the completion rate to 60% by June 30^th, 2020.

Overall, employees are satisfied with DHS when they leave. Those that are retiring have the strongest level of satisfaction at over 82%. Even among the group with the lowest level of satisfaction, those leaving state government, 55% indicated that they were somewhat satisfied or strongly satisfied. DCT and Central Office have similar patterns.
Employees of Color who left DCT have reported a lower level of satisfaction, with only 45% indicating that they were somewhat satisfied or strongly satisfied, compared with 60% of white (non-Hispanic) employees in DCT
Overall, the top three things that employees report that they like most are their benefits, pay, and relationship with coworkers. There are only slight differences between CO and DCT.
Outside of retirement, employees report that they are leaving
- Central Office: Lack of promotional opportunities and salary/pay
- DCT: Work schedule and management practices
Most employees report that they are leaving DHS to go to the private sector (26%) or “other” (37%)

Push for responses: In August, in an effort to increase our response rate, all employees who separated between June and August were sent an additional email to complete the survey, letters were also mailed to each separated employee’s homes.

Information about the exit survey was also published in the DHS Managers Memo at this time and information was shared on InfoLink.

Finally in late November, the Equity Directors were engaged in a conversation about how they might assist in impacting survey completion numbers.

Challenges: The Office of Strategy and Performance (OSP) meets biweekly with Human Resources to discuss patterns and trends in the data. Working with low completion rates has been challenging and has made it hard to point to specific patterns for intervention. Because of the survey instrument change in July, OSP has been working to merge results for analysis between the two instrument versions. This work has been completed the week and will be reviewed as a plan for releasing data that fits within our data practices guidelines is determine.

It is our intention to provide data to program staff who are impacting recruitment and retention.

MAPE Assistance: The more people engaged in this process, the more information we will receive from our separating employees. Specifically we are looking for touchpoints within the agency to encourage completion of this instrument. We would welcome MAPE’s involvement as they see fit.

2020 Meeting Schedule

Wednesday, April 8, 2020 @ 2:30 in ELA2370

Wednesday, August 12, 2020 @ 2:30 in ELA2370

Wednesday, December 9, 2020 @ 2:30 in ELA2370

Handout – Phased Retirement

Internal Memo

Date: 12/6/19

To: DHS Supervisors covered by MMA

DHS Employees Covered by MAPE

cc: DHS Managers

HR Staff

From: Connie Jones, Director of Human Resources

RE: Phased Retirement

I am pleased to announce that as a part of 2019 – 2021 negotiations development with MAPE and MMA the language that was in place for the 2017-2019 contracts related to phased retirement is once again in the 2019-2021 agreements. In short, this enables eligible employees (age 55 or more with 10 years of continuous state service) in the above contracts to arrange a part-time schedule (at least 50% time) for a period of time prior to a firm retirement date. In exchange for the employer receiving advanced notice of one’s intent to retire and the ability to prepare for transfer of knowledge/transition, the employee retains full employer-paid insurance benefits and service credit for retirement benefits. At the end of the phased retirement period, the employee must move to full retirement

If this is something you are interested in considering please review your contract to learn more and obtain approval from your division director by completing the attached Phased Retirement Agreement form, which can also be found on the HR SharePoint site under “Human Resources Forms.” Once this Phased Retirement Agreement form is complete please submit it to Kristin.Hiner@state.mn.us (DCT staff) or Kelly.J.Lessard@state.mn.us (Central Office staff) in Human Resources in order to be processed.

If you have questions please do not hesitate to contact your HR Management Consultant.

Handout – Equity Adjustments FAQ

Equity Adjustments: Frequently Asked Questions

Current to November 8, 2019

What is the purpose of an Equity Adjustment?

The state’s classification and compensation systems are built on merit system principles. This means that, in general, employees with similar years of qualifications and experience should be making close to the same rate of pay. The Equity Adjustment language is intended as a mechanism to adjust salary rates when individuals within the same job classification and with similar years of qualifications and experience are paid at different rates.

Is an agency obligated to forward every employee’s request for an Equity Adjustment to MMB?

No, the contract language does not mandate that agencies forward requests to MMB.

How do I submit a request for an Equity Adjustment?

All requests must come through an agency’s Human Resources Department. They will submit a request to the MMB compensation e-mail: class_comp.mmb@state.mn.us. The Compensation team at MMB will review the request and respond once a determination is made.

What information does MMB need in order to evaluate a request for an Equity Adjustment?

Information about why the subject employee is in an inequitable situation as compared to their peers. This will generally require demonstration that individuals with similar years of experience and qualifications within the job classification are paid at different rates. It may also be helpful to confirm why an Equity Adjustment (rather than a reallocation, promotion, or work out of class assignment) is the right answer to the problem.

How does an Agency request an appeal if MMB turns down a request for an Equity Adjustment?

Decisions are final; there is no appeal process and requests to appeal will not be reconsidered. MMB will confirm that all appropriate information has been received by an agency prior to making its determination.

How is the longstanding Unusual Employment Situation (UES) practice (See Minn. Stat. 43A.17 Subd. 3) different than an Equity Adjustment?

The language and criteria for each differ slightly: A UES is specifically targeted towards challenges in recruiting and retention (historically, UES’s were used as a mechanism to provide a counter offer when employees had a job offer for employment outside of State Service), whereas an Equity Adjustments is intended to address inequities in pay within a classification/salary range.

In addition:

A UES requires specific notification to the legislature each time MMB approves a request; there is no similar reporting requirement for an Equity Adjustment.
A UES permits advancing an incumbent within a range, whereas an Equity Adjustment permits either advancement within the range or a lump-sum for an individual at the top of the range.

Which bargaining units / compensation plans have language permitting equity adjustments?

To date, MAPE and MMA.

Who may submit a request for an Equity adjustment?

Agency HR. MMB will not consider requests directly from individuals or those offered by the union directly.

When does an Equity Adjustment become effective?

Unless directed otherwise by MMB, the request is effective the first day of the pay period after a decision is communicated by MMB.

Most of the employees at my agency have been at the top of the range for many years. It doesn’t seem fair that all of the new people being hired get step increases while my most loyal employees just get Across the Board adjustments. Are my employees at the top eligible for an equity adjustment?

Generally, no. Merely being at the top of the pay range assigned to a job classification does not make an employee eligible to receive an Equity Adjustment. The agency must be able to demonstrate that being at the top of a salary range is creating an inequitable situation based upon where other employees with the job classification have been placed within the salary range.

People in Ramsey County make more than my employees do, for the same job. Does this make them eligible for an Equity Adjustment?

No. However, if you believe the salary range assigned to Job Classification within your agency need to be evaluated, MMB considers requests for a Range Reassignments from agency HR .

I have a star performer who is better at their job than everyone else in the job classification. My agency doesn’t do Achievement Awards, but can I give them an Equity Adjustment?

No. Equity Adjustments are not a performance reward. Satisfactory performance is a requirement for being considered for an adjustment, but exceptional performance cannot be a basis for an adjustment.

Some of my employees do work that is significantly more complex and challenging than their coworkers within the same job classification. Are they eligible for an Equity Adjustment?

No. If you have an employee who has taken on substantially more duties than their coworkers, consider whether a reallocation, or a Work out of Class differential, might be appropriate.

Does “ratification by the legislature” mean we can’t start offering Equity Adjustments until the entire legislature votes on the contract?

A: No. Interim approval by the SER is sufficient to qualify as ‘ratification’ for this purpose. The intent of adding language about ratification to the letter was to indicate that Equity Adjustments could not be processed retroactively to July 1, 2019. HR may submit equity adjustments now

Handout – DHS Affirmative Action Goal Achievement Report – Third Quarter 2019

Human Services Meet & Confer minutes Dec 5, 2019

RE: Phased Retirement

Current to November 8, 2019