 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Negotiations
Updates
|  |
| As updates are provided by the Negotiations Committee, they will be posted here. Most current updates will appear at the top. Monday, May 10, 2010 We
met on Monday – May 03, 2010 at 9:00 but waited until 12:35 to receive the
employer’s latest proposal because the employer was unprepared for bargaining
again – and then the employer gave us their same proposal as the time. Unfortunately,
we only had a half day of bargaining scheduled so the union was unable give a
counter-proposal on this date.
Friday, April 9, 2010 The
union and the employer did not reach an agreement. Union and employer representatives
met at Bureau of Mediation Services (BMS) with a new Mediator on April 9th. It
was the employer's turn to give the union a response. The employer gave us the
same proposal that they gave us February 19, 2010 which we found to be very frustrating.
That proposal was 0% general increases for the next two years with no movement
of any kind though the pay ranges for all employees. Their offers on health insurance
are less than a 50/50 split over the next two years. They are insisting over the
next two years they have only available 2% to split between an increase in wages
and benefits for each contract year. The employer told us if we accepted a two
year contract they would give each employee a $500.00 bonus each year. One time
cash bonuses do not move employees higher in their pay ranges and, in the long
run, really don't add to an employee's "MSRS High Five" for retirement.
The union countered with a one year proposal that the employer told us that they
would have to consult with Tom Weaver about before they could give us a reply. Tentative Agreements Reached: -
Holidays - Union Stewards - union leave clarification Outstanding Issues: -
Insurance (health and dental) We have scheduled two meeting dates with the Mediator at the BMS for May 04, 2010 - 8:00AM to 12:00PM and all day on May 11, 2010. Art
McGrane Friday, February 18, 2010 Unfortunately we did not reach an agreement today. The employer rejected several union proposals, including step plans that moved employees though their pay ranges though "pay for performance." The employer is proposing 0% general increases for the next two years with no movement of any kind though the pay ranges for all employees. Their offers on health insurance are less then a 50/50 split over the next two years. They are insisting over the next two years they have only available 2% to split between an increase in wages and benefits for each contract year. The employer told us if we accepted a two year contract they would give each employee a $500.00 bonus each year. One time cash bonuses do not move employees higher in their pay ranges and, in the long run, really don't add to an employee's "MSRS High Five" for retirement. The union's negotiations team is working well together and I'm proud of the job everyone is doing on behalf of the membership. We have been very creative in our proposals including health insurance that had long term cost saving measures. In order to make those cost savings, the employer needed offer some incentives now to realize those cost savings in the future. Disappointingly the employer is only concerned with short term results and is not willing to take into consideration long term cost saving when it comes to health insurance. We stopped bargaining at 5:30PM when the union and employer could not reach agreement on how much money the employer really has available when calculating a 2% increase on wages and fringe benefits. We need to resolve this calculation issue before we can move on. We are currently trying to schedule meeting dates with the Mediator at the BMS. Once we have the scheduling issue resolved I will notify the membership when our next bargaining session will be.
February 12, 2010 Unexpected
Health Care Meeting Report and the Negotiations Update I'm sorry for the length of this report but there is a lot happening right now. Thursday, February 11th turned out to be a very interesting day. The employer canceled our morning negotiations session, but negotiations did take place in the afternoon. Health Care Meeting During the morning of February 11th the employer called a meeting of all unions and the two management labor associations to discuss the possibility that employees of the Metropolitan Council might become eligible for the State of Minnesota's Health Care Plan. As I've mentioned in previous updates, this idea has been discussed with the labor representatives as something both the employer and labor should explore in the future. We learned that the employer has already written draft legislation and sought sponsors for this legislation at the state capitol. The employer only provided information, including the draft legislation, to the labor units last Friday. The legislation only allows for the Metropolitan Council to become eligible participate in the state health care plan for all its employees - it does not force Council employees into the state plan. This would go into effect only after the Council has met and negotiated the move with the bargaining units. Yesterday the employer asked the labor representatives to agree to the legislation and support it at the state capitol. The employer wants the legislation passed this year in order to have Council employees eligible to move into the state health care program in 2012 as a cost saving measure. The labor representatives asked questions about the state plan that the employer's representatives could not answer: for example, here are a few of our questions:
I need to note and be very clear the employer cannot just move forward without the all the unions' and management labor associations' approval on this health care legislation. They understand it's not politically possible. The employer is well aware of this, and that is why they came to the labor representatives for our agreement and support. After more discussion the labor representatives caucused privately and here are Labor's positions:
We reconvened our meeting with the employer to let them know what our questions and positions are. The employer agreed and now has 30 days to arrange meetings and provide all of the requested information. Negotiations Update Our negotiations meeting was delayed until 1:00 PM, and the union team gave our latest proposal to the employer's representatives at approximately 2:00 PM. Our proposal and discussion centered on our current health insurance programs. At 4:00 PM we found out we would have to leave the BMS facilities for the day at 4:30 PM, once again delaying our negotiations. The employer was unable to respond to our proposal before we adjourned for the day. In all fairness to the employer, they were not delaying on purpose. Our team had expected it to take quite some time for the employer's representatives to digest our proposal, then check and run financial calculations before they could respond to our latest proposal. We were able to set a new meeting date for Friday, February 19, 2010 at Council 5 where we can work undisturbed and, if need be, late into the night if necessary. Yours
in Solidarity February 8, 2010 Hello
Everyone, January 7, 2010 Employer representatives, including Tom Weaver, met with all the labor unions and associations in a joint Labor/Management Committee to update us on the status of the Health Partners contract, including the possibility of moving to the State of Minnesota Health Insurance Plan. The
Employer outlined its heath care goals: Discussion
items included: Labor Representatives privately discussed several scenarios presented by the Employer and reached a united decision to select the 3-year contract with a 9.5%, 14.5% and 14.5% increases with an opt-out option in the 2nd and 3rd years. There is also the possibility that the 14.5% premium rate increase could be reduced to 11% in the 2nd and 3rd years if some changes were made to the current plan. These include higher prescription and office visit co-pays, requiring us to pay a percentage for CT scans and MRI's, etc. The proposed costs are significantly higher than what we are currently paying. The plan design change is clearly just a cost shift from the Employer to employees. The Labor Representatives requested to see the costing data for the plan design changes and usage rates. The Representatives would like to review the data and perhaps propose different plan design changes to try to reduce the impact of the design changes should an individual labor unit decides to move to the 11% rate rather than the 14.5% rate. The Employer has been exploring the option of making the Metropolitan Council eligible to join the State Health Insurance Plan ("State Plan"). We are currently prohibited from joining the State Plan because of state law. The State Health Insurance Plan is similar to our current Health Partners "Distinctions Plan." Details are available online at http://www.mmb.state.mn.us/pay-bene/ins. If implemented, the State plan would totally replace all health insurance plans that are currently offered. The Employer requested that all the labor units join them in lobbying to change the legislation to allow the Met Council and its employees to be eligible to move into the State Plan as early as 2011 or 2012. All the labor units did not agree to this request immediately, as the Employer hoped we would. Labor representatives do not know enough about the State plan's cost, level of benefits, impact on employees and current and future retirees to be able to make an informed decision. We did agree to explore the option and learn more about the State Plan because it does offer a significant savings for both the Employer and employee. The Employer has indicated a willingness to share cost savings with employees (we need this writing and I'm not just being sarcastic). AFSCME Council 5 and the Teamsters will be making available health care professionals to help the Labor Representatives work though all the numbers and issues that surround a possible move from Health Partners to the State Plan to help us get the best deal for our health care dollars. All contract bargaining is on hold until 1) the plan design changes are finalized, and 2) we have explored the State Plan versus the current Health Partners Plans. Union Representatives are requesting these issues be resolved as quickly as possible. Clearly these issues could have been resolved last year by the Employer in advance of the start of contract negotiations for all the bargaining units. Unfortunately, these issues have now delayed and will continue to delay contract negotiations and reaching a final agreement. AFSCME requested that the Employer not impose the health insurance rate increase on the first pay period of 2010 since it was clearly the Employer's fault negotiations have been delayed again; the Employer once again denied our request. As more information becomes available I will keep you updated. Yours in Solidarity Art
McGrane December 16, 2009 The employer has announced that it is unilaterally suspending contract negotiations for of all the Council's bargaining units, including AFSCME Local 668. The union received the following message from the employer's representative late yesterday: "As the Council has been finalizing the contract with HealthPartners for 2010 and beyond issues have surfaced about penalties that may be assessed if the Council were to opt out of the HealthPartners contract in 2011 or 2012. The issue of penalties has renewed discussions about premium increases being charged in 2010 and beyond and the urgency of plan design changes in 2011 and 2012. With so much uncertainty suddenly emerging, the ability to effectively negotiate is compromised. At this time, it is necessary to call a brief pause in labor negotiations until the rates and plan design issues can be resolved. We expect some clarity from HealthPartners toward the end of this week. In addition, we would like to call a meeting of the union coalition/labor management committee to discuss some of the issues that have presented themselves and hopefully reach agreement on moving forward. We are currently trying to schedule that meeting for the week between Christmas and New Years. I am very sorry for the sudden nature of this delay. It is not our intent to make this a lengthy delay; it is our intent to be able to come back to the bargaining table with clear direction and the ability to reach a quick settlement." Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sandi
Blaeser I have no other information at this point in time and do not know how this will affect our future negotiations concerning the cost of health insurance. As information becomes available that I can share with the union membership, I will do so. Yours in Solidarity Art
McGrane December 11, 2009 Our day centered around the cost of health insurance for the employer and employees. Both the union and employer knew going into negotiations the Health Partners premiums would be: - Premiums rates for are 2010 fixed with AFSCME employees paying 9.5% of the total cost for all three health insurance plans (Open Access, Distinctions and HRA) with no changes to co-pays and out of pocket expenses. - The employee's premium rate for 2011 is expected to be 14.5% without changes to co-pays and out of pocket expenses. There is a possibility of a lowering the premium rate to 11% if we agree to an increase in co-pays and out of pocket are expenses for employees. - The premium rate for 2012 is expected to be 14.5% without changes to co-pays and out of pocket expenses. Again, there is a possibility of a lowering the premium rate to 11% provided if we agree to an increase of co-pays and out of pocket are expenses for employees. The union's team is currently waiting for more cost information from the employer so both sides have all the data concerning health insurance. Once we have the requested data we will be able to continue with in-depth discussions concerning health insurance during our next meeting. Our
next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday - December 15, 2009 December 09, 2009 Local 668 has started the first round of bargaining with the introduction of representatives and the Mediator. They are: For the Union:
For the Employer:
Mediator: Bob Wiesenberger The employer and union exchanged our initial proposals. There were questions from both sides concerning each other's proposals, and there was a great deal of discussion on all the issues. The biggest issue, as we expected, is health insurance and the rapidly rising cost of premiums for the employee and employer. This is clearly the most difficult issue we will have to deal with. Our
next meeting will be Friday - December 11, 2009. | |
