Negotiations 2009   Dates  |   Proposals  |   Reports  |   Committee  |   Background  |   Links

Tentative Contract Agreement Reached

Tentative Agreement Summary for contract 2009-2011, June 8, 2009

On Monday, June 8, 2009 at 6:00 p.m., our Union and the University reached a tentative agreement in settlement of our negotiations for the contract year 2009-2011. This marks the first time since our initial contract negotiations that we have reached a settlement before the expiration of the contract.  Our current contract ends on June 30, 2009.

A summary of the terms of settlement follows, and members will receive information with additional details as they are finalized, along with information about voting on this tentative agreement.

Please remember! Only members may vote, but you are urged to sign a membership card to join the Union and participate in this process.

Article 19, Wages

• All Technical Bargaining Unit employees whose pay rate falls within the pay ranges for the Unit will receive a 2% general wage adjustment on July 1, 2010. This pay increase will apply to employees at the top of the range, since the ranges will all move up 2% with this increase.
• Progression steps will be temporarily suspended for the life of this contract, but the language will remain printed (as shaded paragraphs) in the contract, and will become part of the negotiations for the next contract.

Article 20, Insurance

• There are several changes to the section entitled “Basic Coverage”, but for most employees these will have a relatively minor impact.  These changes will become effective 1/1/2010.
• The Union and the University agreed that there will be no changes in the percentages to employees’ contributions to their Health Plans (90%/10% for the employee-only contribution; 85%/15% for family coverage)
• One of the most important pieces of information we received from the University is that in any situation in which the use of a higher-priced drug is a medical necessity, the Prior Approval process will apply.
• Specialty drug coverage (in which a drug is administered in a lab or a clinical setting, such as the infusion of a medication) will now be covered through the pharmacy plan rather than the medical plan. This is primarily an administrative change rather than a change that will affect how the actual drug is administered.
• Low-dose Lipitor, when not used for its secondary therapeutic value, will be moved to a non-formulary copay in order to encourage the use of low-dose generic equivalents.
• The pharmacy plan will provide only one brand of diabetic testing equipment and supplies at the generic copay. The University will arrange for informational presentations by the provider and manufacturer, and will make detailed information available regarding the use and capabilities of the meters and test strips. (The Prior Approval process will continue to apply to exceptions for these products as well.)
• Pharmacy copays will increase for the medications that are not listed as Generic Plus:
• • Generic Plus drugs will remain at $8
  • Brand formulary drugs will become to $25
  • Non-formulary drugs will become to $50
• Emergency Room copays will become $75, but the copay will continue to be waived if the patient is admitted to the hospital
• A new copay for MRI and CT scans will be instituted at $25, but there will still be no copays for lab/diagnostic testing
• The office visit copay will become to $11 for the Base Plan and Health Partners. This is still far below the standard, which runs from $15 to $25 per visit under other plans outside the University.
• Obsolete language regarding a one-time 2008 open-enrollment for life insurance will be deleted

MOUs and other material appended to the contract

• An MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) from the 2007-09 contract regarding an agreement to meet and confer on issues relating to our salary steps (compression of steps, length of pay ranges, etc.) will be modified to a letter pledging to continue working on these issues. In November, 2008, the Union and the University agreed on three recommendations for possible new models for the salary step system:
  1. The parties recommend reducing the number of steps no more than nineteen (19) steps in any classification.
  2. The restructuring/compression of steps may vary from bargaining unit to bargaining unit and will be determined through collective bargaining.
  3. These recommendations are not limited to the 2009 contract negotiations. 
  The letter will recognize what we have already accomplished and acknowledge that either party may wish to pursue the next logical steps in a more favorable economic climate.
• There will be a new MOU to address issues surrounding Respectful Workplace language. Representatives from the Union and the University will meet and confer to discuss the issues and possibly arrive at some processes to address them. The speed of this negotiations process did not allow us an opportunity to fully discuss all the parties’ concerns.

“Housekeeping changes”

• All the appropriate date changes will be made, along with continuing all the Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) and the Fitness Incentive Letter.

The Unit 7 Technical Union Negotiations Committee unanimously recommended acceptance of this Tentative Agreement. 

Denise Osterholm, Co-chair, Local 3801
Barbara Bezat, Co-chair, Local 3937
Jody Ebert, Local 3937
Krista Gallagher, Local 3937
Ken Holm, Local 3937
Greg Knoblauch, Local 3937
Ron Kubik, Local 3937
Ryan Mattke, Local 3937
Beth Wolszon, Local 3937

Tentative Agreement Summary (pdf)

Negotiation Settlement Grid (pdf)

Negotiation Dates

April 24 - Negotiating Team first meets
May 14 - 1st meeting with University
May 18 - 2nd meeting with University (health insurance opener)
May 26 - 3rd meeting with University
May 28 - 4th meeting with University
June 8 - 5th meeting with University

Union & University Proposals

20090514_Unit_7_UM_Proposal.pdf
20090514_Unit_7_Union_Proposal_Package.pdf

20090518_UM_Insurance_Proposals_from_20090526_Mtg.pdf

20090528_Unit_7_UM_Proposal.pdf
20090528_Unit_7_Union_Proposal_Package.pdf

210090609 Tentative Agreement Summary.pdf

Negotiation Reports

Summary for 5/14

This was our initial meeting with the University—we did a round of introductions and then formally exchanged proposals. The University’s team is being lead by Sheri Stone, an Assistant Director for University Human Resources. Our lead negotiator is Joyce Carlson, our union representative; the Unit 7 Negotiations Committee co-chairs for the union are Barb Bezat, president of Local 3937, and Denise Osterholm, president of Local 3801. (The full list of committee members is listed lower on this web page.) The tone of negotiations has been respectful—there was a productive exchange between the parties as they asked questions about each other’s initial proposal. Both parties expressed the desire and intent to finish negotiations before the current contract expires on June 30, 2009 (if negotiations are not completed by June 30, the current contract continues until a new agreement is reached).

The total Union proposal package consisted of seven items, as approved by the membership on May 6, 2009. The Union proposed a “reasonable” wage increase, steps in each year and some minor language changes to the contract. View the proposal as it was presented to the University (pdf).

The University made their initial proposal over the course of two days. On 5/14 they presented their “wages and duration” proposal (pdf). On 5/18 they verbally provided us with their insurance proposals. We received their insurance proposals in writing on 5/26. The University proposed no wage increase and frozen steps over a two year contract. There were eight insurance proposals in total—view the insurance proposals (pdf). The negotiations committee is reviewing the impact of the insurance proposals—we have asked for additional information related to the proposals and are waiting to hear back from the University.

Summary for 5/28

This was our fourth meeting with the University. There was a second round of proposals delivered by each party at this meeting. The University provided the first response. Their financial and insurance proposals remained the same. They indicated that the Union’s proposed minor language changes to the contract were not acceptable. View proposal package #2 from the University (pdf).

The Union also provided a second proposal package in response to the University. We made significant movement in the interest of settling the contract quickly. We maintained our “reasonable” wage proposal. We amended our step progression proposal to reflect a lump sum payment in the first year and a step movement in the second year. We also responded item by item to the University’s insurance proposal. One insurance language proposal related to layoffs was not acceptable to the Union committee and we turned the proposal down. Two items were still pending as we are waiting for further information from the University. We either accepted or amended and counter-proposed for the other items. View proposal package #2 from the Union (pdf).

The meeting ended without further discussion on either proposal package. The following day, the Union proposed to the University that a mediator be present at our next meeting and the University concurred. Our next meeting with the University, with the mediator present, is on June 12.

Negotiations Committee

The Technical Bargaining Unit Negotiations Committee for the upcoming contract bargaining round was elected by the members present at the February 18th, 2009 membership meeting.

Your co-workers who will be representing you at the bargaining table are:

- Barbara Bezat - Andersen Library (West Bank), Co-chair
- Denise Osterholm - Duluth Campus, Local 3801 President, Co-chair
- Ken Holm - RAR (St. Paul Campus)
- Krista Gallagher - Med Area (East Bank)
- Ron Kubik - Morris Campus
- Greg Knoblauch - Vet Teaching Hospital (St. Paul Campus)
- Jody Ebert - Wilson Library (West Bank)
- Ryan Mattke - Wilson Library (West Bank)
- Beth Wolszon - Wilson Library (West Bank)

Background

Why do unions exist?

Historically unions have formed in work places where there is little trust between labor (workers) and management as a way for workers to protect themselves from misuse by management. Unions unite workers to give them more power, protection and security in the work place. Some of the accomplishemnts of unions are: the five-day work week, child labor protections, better pay and benefits.

What is the structure of the UofM unions?
(locals, Council 5, AFSCME)

At the "U" two labor unions represent most of the workers on campus - that's AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) and the Teamsters. The "U" AFSCME has four "Locals" which are groups of workers in related job classes. Each local is assigned a number to identify it. The "U's" AFSCME Locals are: 3800 Unit 6 representing the clerical workers, 3260 Unit 4 representing the Healthcare workers, 3937 Unit 7 representing the Technical , and 3801 for Duluth Units 6 and 7 clerical and technical workers combined. The Council is the state level of the AFSCME organization. It works to guide and support the locals. It provides local 3937 with its business agent (and chief negotiator), Joyce Carlson.

How do negotiations work?

Generally, negotiations are divided into three subject areas: health benefits, contract language, and economics (pay). There are separate meetings to deal with each of these topics. Joyce Carlson is 3937's chief negotiator, which means she does the talking to management for us. The University appoints a negotiator as well, and that person speaks for the University.

Negotiations with the University is of the more formal style, with each side bringing proposals to the table and presenting both the proposals and the reasons for bringing the proposals forward. Your negotiations team is present as witnesses, observers, and note takers during the formal presentations. In some instances, various negotiations team members speak on issues about which they are very familiar, and can speak clearly and definitively to the issues as experienced in the workplace. The side receiving the proposal generally asks many questions to clarify what they're hearing, and to ensure that they understand the meaning of the proposed change to the contract.

In addition, your negotiations team is empowered to amend, edit or drop proposals, as well as author new proposals (or variations on proposals) as the need arises. This all happens in the Union's caucus (a meeting of the Union negotiations team members alone.) The caucuses are the meetings in which there is free discussion about the University's proposals and whether or not those proposals will meet the needs of the Local members.

When any controversy arises at the negotiations table we can request a caucus (a time out) to disucss the issue and plan strategy with Joyce and among ourselves without management present.

The first few meetings between the Union and the University are generally short ones, in which each side presents its set of proposals and the parties adjourn to discuss both the specifics of the proposals and the impact these proposals would have on their respective constituencies. The meetings get longer and more frequent as the parties get closer to a resolution of the contract negotiations.

Links

2007-2009 3937-UofM Contract