L i U
ld l V
U O G
u n i
3
V O L . X X III. N O . 6
1 9 8 8
SEPTEM BER 9, 1988
o -IN
C o n tr a c t T a lk s A
N
e w
B
e g
i n
By Stephen L. Leech, Chief Negotiator Elsewhere in this Stater you’ll read the “Collective Bargaining Report by Mary Anne Turowski, Chair of the Collective Bargaining Review Committee and Cathy Cotton, Committee member. This report details recommended modifications to the bargaining process adopted by the Board of Directors. In this article I’d like to express a few thoughts on those modifications and also provide you, the membership, with information you’ll need to assess whether and to what degree you become involved in this upcoming round of contract negotiations. Collective Bargaining is an all-volunteer and a democrati cally-based operation, a product of those who step forward and take on such responsibility. We’ve had our victories and weve had our failures. On balance, while the former has outweighed the latter, at least some of our failures result from mistakes we’ve allowed ourselves to repeat round after round until they’ve become institutionalized. One example, obvious to most MSEA Bargaining Team members, is the extraordinary number of demands we present to the State each time and the consequent difficulty of impressing on the State the real priorities of our membership. The consequence of such an approach requires State negotiators, indeed hands them every opportunity, to establish our priorities for us — and on their timetable, not ours. A number of the changes, now mandated by MSEA’s Board of Directors, are designed to redirect certain past strategies, making them more effective. At least two of these
N
e w
U PS709-
T a x
S h e l t e r
P e n s i o n s E f f e c t
N
t o
e x t
g o
n
i n
g
f o
r
S
t a
t e
w
i d
changes will pose a challenge for our Bargaining Committees and Teams. 1. For the first time, Bargaining Committees will be charged with prioritizing the hundreds of proposals submitted by membership. 2. Following this, both the Committees and Teams will be strongly encouraged to streamline the final package of proposals in accordance with the guidelines recommended by the Board — 50 Coalition proposals and 10 proposals per unit, a total of 100. This is roughly 50% of the number we usually bring to the table. The Committee itself has been pared to match the level of past participation rates — 175 people, (see below). Team sizes have been reduced to four members per Team. This won’t result in a net reduction of leave time in favor of tne State, however, because the State has agreed to return the equivalent leave time to our Committee and Team Members for use during preparation stages of bargaining. This will allow members to participate who otherwise would be unable to, and will provide more time to the Committee so essential to its increased responsibility. The two-term limit for Team members will hopefully encourage participation of those who, while perhaps becoming involved at the Committee level, have not taken that final leap to the bargaining table. The wisdom of the “veterans” will still be available as those members can, if they’re willing and able, return to the Teams fresh from a one-round rest.
e
B
a r g
a i n
i n
g
Another change adopted by the Board: the requi that the Teams negotiate in coalition, our traditional ap for many sound reasons. This does not prevent a ur bargaining separately, if such separate bargaining temporary for dealing with specific issues which otherwise bog down general coalition progress; or the unit gets prior approval from the Board of Directors to separate, for the duration or until they’re ready to return. The extreme opposite of Coalition bargaining is each unit negotiating for itself. The dynamic of independent bargaining raise some serious questions: 1. Do we lose a psychological and Strategic edge provided by the real solidarity coalition bargaining? — I would suspect we would. 2. Do we give the State the opportunity of playing our units off against each other? — Of course. 3. Are we staffed for five separate negotiations in the Executive Branch alone? — Not presently. Does Coalition bargaining address the many special situations unique to a classification, occupation, or bargaining unit? Not in all cases, but neither does independent bargaining. I predict that with some of the shifts in our approach and over-all strategy, we will have a greater opportunity than ever to meet those special needs of greatest importance to our membership. It will require patience, respect, commitment and most of all, mutual support. That’s the challenge we face in the coming months. M ore o n B a r g a in in g C o m m itte e s ...p . 2
f o r
I n to
J a n u a r y
If you’re an active Maine public employee who is a member of Retirement System you should know that the Maine State Retirement System Board of Trustees is at work on a plan that should mean beginning in January, 1989 you will no longer have federal taxes on your contribution to the Retirement System deducted from your paycheck. Last winter, MSEA sponsored a bill in the second session of the 113th Legislature to allow the Retirement System to apply for Internal Revenue Service approval of a plan to defer federal taxes on employee contributions to the system. That bill passed. Now the IRS has given its approval to the plan. Under the plan to go into effect in January, federal taxes on employee contributions will be deferred until retirement benefits are received —at which time, most members of the Retirement System can be expected to pay substantially less in federal taxes because they will in lower tax brackets. The change will mean more dollars in your paycheck after January, and less tax to pay when you retire!
State employee at work: Maine Ferry Service captain Sonny Polk of East Camden photographed at the helm earlier this year. Polk, an MSEA member in the Knox-Waldo
Chapter, runs the ferry out of Lincolnville to
S p e c i a l S e c t i o n o n M S E A C o n v e n t io n D e l e g a t e s ...p p . 5 -8 m
m
M TATP
I tH H A H V