|
|
California National Guard |
Local 2163 Gets Mixed Signals
as Management Team Uses Delay Tactics to Stall Contract
Negotiations
by Ben Banchs |
| |
Sacramento, CA (June 22, 2012) – A much anticipated week of
contract negotiations turned adversarial quickly as it became
clear from the onset that the California National Guard Management team was unwilling to
negotiate in good faith (Ref.
5 USC 7114(b)) and submit to a process which had been in the
pipeline for well over a year. The distance between the two
groups widened immediately after convening at 8:00am at the
Okinawa Armory on June 19, 2012, the first day of negotiations.
Things deteriorated so quickly that the Union team considered
walking away from the negotiating table and filing a complaint
with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) for
Management's failure to adhere to good faith principles. In the
end the parties managed to make some very small progress, but
the vast ocean of differences (both technical and personal) that
emerged between the parties proved too big to overcome. This was
an unfortunate and unprecedented turn of events since the Union
team was under the impression that MG David Baldwin's
representatives were fully
prepared to sit with the Union and hash out a new collective
bargaining agreement (CBA, a.k.a. the Union contract).
Rather than dive into the contract proposal submitted by the
Union last February 2012, Management's team decided to revisit
topics which the Union thought had already been agreed to
previously. The first action taken by Management during the
negotiation session was to
challenge the number of Union representatives allowed in the
room and whether or not they were going to be granted Official
Time. This was an issue that was and should have been handled
well in advanced of meeting to negotiate. Regardless,
Management's team pressed ahead with trying to exclude and deny
Official Time to certain members of the Union's team. After wasting almost an entire day on the size and role of
those present in the room, the Union put the issue to rest by
producing a Management
Memo
composed by the Labor Relations Specialist (not even a week old) authorizing Official Time to those
present. The fact that that same Labor Relations Specialist was
in the room the entire time the debate was taking place was even
more puzzling since she could have easily settled the matter and
we could have moved on to the business at hand.
Once the issue of Official Time was settled, Management
proceeded to attempt to end contract negotiations by stating
that they felt the changes that the Union was proposing were too
many, and that they did not see the need for expanding the
current contract from 20-something pages to over 100. At that
point the Management team counter-proposed that the Union agree
not to make any changes to the current agreement, a move which
baffled the Union team considering that Management has know for
well over a year that the Union was intent on re-negotiating the
entire document. You really have to wonder what MG Baldwin's
staff was thinking.
First, from a common sense perspective, if the Union was willing
to keep the current agreement and not make any changes why would
we have requested to open negotiations over a year ago (Ref.
April 2011 Memo), and why would we have spent countless hours
putting together the Union's change proposal? If the current CBA
was properly addressing the issues that concern CARNG
Technicians then we would gladly let it ride.
Second, it's not as if Management didn't know that the Union
would be proposing so many changes and modifications to the
current agreement. For over a year now we have indicated to both
MG Baldwin and his staff (both in person and in writing) that
the Union intended to make significant changes to the CBA
because the current agreement is either too ambiguous or fails
to address critical areas of Technician employment. For them to
show up and not just propose but demand that the agreement stay
the same signals a huge disconnect between the Adjutant
General's office and what's happening in the trenches.
Third, from a fiscally responsible perspective, if Management
was either unwilling or unprepared to negotiate the contract,
why would they spend thousands of dollars in taxpayer money on this
process? Aside from the actual week we met for negotiations from
June 19-22, Management had granted each Union representative
involved in the negotiations 120-hours of Official Time in order
to prepare for this event. This equals a total of more than 800
man hours allowed to Union team members to prepare prior to the actual week
of negotiations. Even if you do a conservative estimate of $25
per hour, you're talking over $20,000 worth of man hours just to
prepare for contract negotiations, and this is just for the Union
representatives. Then, during the actual week of negotiations, Union
officials not only received Official Time, but also
travel and lodging expenses. Using the $25 per man-hour
estimate, that's another $7,000 not including travel, which
would easily put this over $30,000, and not including what it cost
Management to be there. Their man-hour expenses are surely to be
higher since they are all GS-12 and above. Add $5000 for the use
of a contracted stenographer and let's just say, conservatively, that it
cost between $50k - $75k to prepare and convene for one week of
negotiations, maybe more. Then consider the fact that we managed to actually
agree to 3 pages out of a 101-page proposal. Using the
conservative cost estimate above, that's almost $17,000 per
page on the low side! Also, if things don't speed-up, and if it takes 4 days to
agree to 3 pages of language, at this rate then
it'll take a total of 134 days to finalize a new agreement, and
no telling how much more taxpayer money!
The disappointing part for the Union team is that from the very
first meeting that took place between MG Baldwin and Union
representatives in 2011, it has always been our impression that
the General is definitely on board with improving the sour
relationship that existed between Union and Management. We
believe it is MG Baldwin's intent to
make sure that his staff understand he sees the Union as a
partner not an adversary. These impressions are based on MG
Baldwin's own statements and certain actions which he has
consistently taken regarding issues that the Union has brought
to his attention. From our perspective, there is a very obvious
disconnect between the man in charge and the people he's
counting on to do their jobs.
In any event, barring any unexpected changes, we have
agreed to a second week of contract negotiations to take place
in November of this year. The Union is prepared to sit at the
negotiating table and work on a new agreement. The question is
whether Management will be ready, willing, and able to fulfill
their duty to negotiate in good faith.
Cesar Chavez said that "once social change begins, it cannot be
reversed. You cannot un-educate the person who has learned to
read. You cannot humiliate the person who feels pride. You
cannot oppress the people who are not afraid anymore. We have
seen the future, and the future is ours.” What's taking place
within the California National Guard is exactly that, social
change, and it won't be reversed.
As the Union has become more involved over the last
year-and-a-half, the number of members has nearly doubled to
approximately 425, or 50% of total Army Technicians. Our
influence is being seen and felt at all levels, from our most
junior member all the way to the Adjutant General's office. Part
of that social change is the re-negotiation of the Union
contract; this is the document that sets the ground rules for
how Management is allowed to treat employees, and it is our
right to negotiate this agreement. One way or another it will
get done. It's up to Management to join us in this process so
that we can craft an agreement that sets the benchmark for all
other States and Territories in all of the National Guard.
Background
1. Local 2163 began the process of requesting that management
renegotiate the current Collective Bargaining Agreement (aka the
Union Contract) last
April 2011.
2. During our meeting with MG Baldwin on June 16, 2011, we
discussed the pending contract negotiations and the General
indicated much support for the process.
3. At Management's request, negotiations which were supposed
to initially begin in November 2011 were first delayed to
January 2012 for no other reason than lack of preparation on
Management's part. Some of this delay has been due to personnel
changes and challenges that MG Baldwin had been trying to sort
out in the Human Resources Office (HRO), a matter which the
Union completely understood and worked with Management to sort
through.
4. The Union was ready to go to the negotiation table in January
when in late December 2011 we received
notice that negotiations would have to be delayed further.
We did not initially agree, and when Management attempted to
schedule dates without our concurrence, we let them know that we
did not want to move forward because they had not taken the
necessary and proper steps to begin negotiations. Eventually, they agreed to meet to sign ground rules. See email traffic
here.
5. It was finally agreed that we would would meet at the Okinawa Armory
on February 17, 2012, to sign the Memorandum of Agreement
required to initiate contract negotiations, and to exchange
contract proposals. All this time we were under the impression
that negotiations would begin February 27, 2012, per the
notification we had received from MSgt James Patton.
However, when we showed up to the Armory we were informed by
Management that not only were they going to arbitrarily move
negotiations back to an unspecified date, but that they also did
not have a contract proposal ready for us. However, in good
faith, we agreed to their request based on the fact that they
had just appointed MSgt Amber Bambaloff as Labor Relations
Chief, and she was a by-the-book person. See email traffic
here.
6.
After much back and forth, the parties officially agreed to
enter contract negotiations on June 19, 2012. It is
interesting to note that at the February 17, 2012, meeting at
the Okinawa Armory the Union
hand-delivered our entire 101-page contract proposal to MSgt
Bambaloff, a full 4 months prior to negotiations actually
starting. This is important because even if they claim they had
no idea prior to this meeting, Management now knew full well
what the Union's intention was, which was to make significant
changes. The fact is they had been knowing since at least December
2011
when they were told in no uncertain terms that the Unions
intention was to model California's new CBA after
Louisiana. At
that time, representatives from the CNG Labor Relations Office
reached out to their Louisiana counterparts asking to get a copy
of their CBA. The point here being that for Management to show
up to the Okinawa Armory on June 2012 and stall negotiations in the manner
that they did was not good faith bargaining. We can only hope
they approach the table with a more sincere attempt to negotiate
next time around. Otherwise we'll just have to let the FLRA sort
it out and spend even more taxpayer money unnecessarily.
Related Documents
Union Proposal
Management's Proposal
CBA Transcripts
Pages 1-200
Pages 201-400
Pages 401-543
Agreed to Provisions
Preamble
Article 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
SPONSORED LINKS
|
