4/27 Actions

Hundreds of folks called Scott Harra today to send the message that 26 furloughs and a step freeze is too much. Below are some pictures from ODOT crews showing the impact each furlough day would have on the services provided to the public. If your work group gets me a photo I can help photoshop it (barnardt@opeuseiu.org). These 8x10 photos were mailed to Scott Harra (the head of DAS).

ODOT Coalition Report 5

Our Union bargaining team, represented by over 25 members, met with Management Monday night. Management put three package proposals across the table. While there was some movement on a few important issues, such as accepting as part of their package the Union’s proposal to increase the Forestry tool reimbursement, it was mostly a combination of previous proposals and attempts to keep current contract language. Our Union stayed in caucus for several hours and developed counter package proposals that showed movement on some issues but maintained the goals to move our coalition forward.

On issue after issue we had members there to speak and defend our proposals. Our ODFW delegates such as Joe Sheahan, Eric Ollerenshaw, Doug Case, Bill Kinyoun and Dave Judkins pushed management to understand why it is important, and a priority for our ODFW members to get fair scheduling language. We want to make progress on:
• getting schedules posted in advance
• limiting mandated shifts to no more than 12 hours (outside emergencies)
• to have at least 12 hours between shifts (outside emergencies)
• getting 60 hours between work weeks
The Union Counter proposal on scheduling accepted Management’s language that gets lunch language and reasonable notice for out-of-town travel. The Union, as part of the package with scheduling (Article 90.3E), withdrew our proposal to compensate workers in ODFW required to use their own vehicles (Article 37.3E). Joe Sheahan, even though this does not personally affect him, fought hard to get movement on this issue and vowed to try to address it from a different angle because of its adverse affect on ODFW’s lowest paid members.

On the second package Management accepted the Union’s initial proposal that gets our Forestry mechanics equity with ODOT mechanics on tool reimbursement(Article 122.3C). The rest of the package included no movement on the Forestry Pac Test (LOA), a cleanup fix in Parks language (Article 70.3B), a new counter that expanded language to ODOT that allows seasonals to carry over vacation (Article 66.3), and their previous proposal on travel language (Article 36.3AC).

The Union Counter package accepted Management’s movement on tool reimbursement (Article 122.3C), clean up proposal for Parks geographic areas (Article 70.3B), seasonal vacation carry over to ODOT , and kept our language to reduce the number of days for vacation requests to seven (Article 66.3), wrote new language to get the costs associated with the Pac Test release with the employer (LOA), and kept our language on travel that would help those on fires receive non-commercial lodging rate (Article 36.3AC).

The third package Management put forward by management declined the Union language on stewards (Article 10.3ABE), declined the Union language on posting OT lists (Article 32.3), declined changes to expanding penalty pay to include days of the week (Article 40.3), included some changes to address ODOT holiday situations, but ignored the Union proposal for DMV offices(Article 58.3). Their package also included their initial proposal on scheduling (Article 90.3A) and their previous proposal on Training and Education (Article 121.3).

The Union wrote a counter package that modified our steward proposal to add ODOT stewards, keeps current language on overtime, keeps our prior proposal on penalty pay expansion, accepts Management’s proposal for ODOT holidays but also keeps our DMV language on the same issue. Sonya Reichwein (DMV) spoke to why a one-size-fits-all approach did not fix the issue. The Union proposal also keeps much of our prior proposal for Education and Training and the changes we proposed in scheduling for breaks. Finally, kept a piece of a prior proposal that would force DMV to pull transfer lists prior to opening positions as “agency opportunities” or “open competitive”.

We have shown that when we prioritize and organize around these issues we can win. If these proposals are important to you, there is no better way to help us make them reality than to attend bargaining and let management know how it would improve things. We have consistently had over 25 people at bargaining and sometimes as many as 40. If we want to finish coalition with some victories to feel proud of please attend on May 4th, and help us win. We want to pack the house and start building some momentum as we head into the home stretch of bargaining.

We meet at the ODOT HR Building at 5:30 for a meal and meeting. Bargaining begins at 6:30 and we expect that Management will start to respond to some of our packages and a few stand alone articles that have not gotten responses. The ODOT HR Building address is 2775 19th St SE, Salem OR. If you don’t know how to find it there are directions on the front doors at the Salem Union HQ. If you have any questions, please contact Troy Barnard at barnardt@opeuseiu.org or 503-830-1201.

ODOT Coalition Bargaining Report #4

On Monday, April 6th our Union’s Coalition Bargaining Team met and continued negotiations with the States ODOT Coalition Team. The Union was represented by 24 members from DMV, ODFW, ODF, OPRD, ODOT and Troy Barnard and Lisa Donoho from SEIU. Management was represented by 10 agency managers and Tom Perry from DAS.

Management started the evening off by putting several counter proposals across the table. While some of the proposals were met with praise, many others fell short and left our bargaining team eager to push on.

The first item discussed was Article 10.3ABE. Management proposed current language because they asserted the Union’s proposal would draw multiple employees away from current crews. They claimed it was SEIU’s problem that we do not have enough stewards. They missed the point that this proposal was actually intended to allow large crews in ODOT and Parks to have two stewards rather than one.

They also proposed current language for Article 32.3 where the Union is trying to get a list posted for overtime to ensure it is being spread as equally as is feasible.

Management was not ready to put a counter proposal on 33.3A yet, but did indicate a willingness to accept some of the suggestions in the Union proposal. It also seemed likely this would be included in a package proposal at a later date. They also were not ready to propose on Article 58.3.

The first paper proposal of the night was on Article 36.3AC. The first significant omission was any real change to the Forestry language around non-commercial travel rate. Not only did they not accept the Union’s proposal to expand the situations where the non-commercial travel rate is paid, they seemed to interpret the current language as a penalty payment for when ODF management forgot to bring any gear. There was much disagreement on this issue and our bargaining delegates were miffed by Managements recollection of the intent from two years prior. Tom Perry promised to provide his notes from the prior negotiations.

Also in Article 36.3AC management accepted the Union’s proposal for section 4 that is housekeeping language that eliminates the old rate language. Management did not understand the Union proposal to bring the definition of official station into line with current practice so they proposed to leave it broken. In section 6 they did not accept the Union proposal but did add a piece that appears to be clarifying language for the DMV folks. Lastly in 36.3AC they accepted the Union proposal to strikethrough the listed classifications and have it tied to those listed in Article 33.3A.

On the Article 37.3E, Management chose not to accept the Union proposal. This led to a lot of discussion in the Union caucus and the ODFW delegates are working on a plan to move forward.

Management proposed current language on 45.3. They asserted that there was not a problem.

Their proposal on 66.3 accepted the Union ideas to eliminate the Phipps Nursery language and to add Forestry to language that allows seasonal to carry over vacation time over from season to season in certain circumstances. This was a priority for Forestry and they were glad to see this accomplished. Management did not accept the Union’s proposal to reduce the number of day’s management has to either accept or reschedule vacation requests. The Union put a counter proposal across the table after caucus on this that would move the number of days from 15 days to 7. Our bargaining team felt this would be a victory on this issue if accepted.

On Article 90.3E Management responded with a proposal that accepts parts of the Union proposal that would address lunch periods being near the middle of a daily work shift and also notices for out of town travel. The other pieces of the proposal were not accepted and there was a lengthy discussion about whether the Union delegates had convinced Management of a problem. Eric Ollerenshaw, Doug Case, Joe Sheahan and others explained there was in fact a problem and shared some anecdotes with them to help them understand. There appears to be a lot of work to do on this one and we will need to get good data together to demonstrate the need.

The next proposal they spoke to was their counter proposal for Article 121.3. They accepted our “to promote career development” language in section 1, but declined to accept our strikethrough of job-related. There was some discussion about whether adding the new language gave members the ability to get trainings for positions they hoped to promote to. Tom Perry said he could interpret it that way, but he could not speak for others. This will need to be clarified during the next discussion on this article. Another piece of our proposal was changes in section 3 that management did not accept. They did accept a part of our proposal that would allow for some rotational opportunities to be posted 14 days in advance.

On Article 122.3AB we scored a significant piece of movement when management accepted the Union idea to make seasonal and part time Parks workers eligible for the boot reimbursement. The other movement on this article was their accepting of machinists and auto techs to be added to the prescription safety glass reimbursement provision.

The last counter proposal they put across the table was on the work capacity test for Forestry workers. They did not accept our proposal to shift the cost burden for exemptions from the employee to the employer. Also, they proposed this letter of agreement be integrated into the contract in a new Article 101.3C. This letter of agreement has caused a lot of frustration because of the fairness issues involved.

Overall there were some movements to be excited about and some we will have to keep working on to achieve movement. It did give us a better idea of what we are in for over the next couple months. Getting the Parks boots language movement, and the movement on seasonal vacation language for Forestry are examples of what we can achieve when we are persistent. The barriers we face on the tent language for Forestry and our scheduling changes for ODFW are priorities we will have to fight for. We need members to attend bargaining to support each other and to show Management these are important issues.

Please join us at the next bargaining session April 20th and help us negotiate coalition language we can be proud of. The next session we will put some counter proposals back across the table and we should be receiving a package proposal on all the Article 122’s as well as 40.3.

Rather than meeting at the Union hall like we have previously done, we will be meeting at the ODOT HR building at 5:30 for dinner and meeting and then start bargaining at 6:30. The address is 2775 19th St SE, Salem, Oregon. If you have any questions or would like to attend please contact Troy Barnard at 503-830-1201 or barnardt@opeuseiu.org.

Creating A Better World, Member Organizers

Union advocates cite statistics that point to the decline in Union membership in our lifetime. A number frequently used is only 12% of American Labor is unionized; down 35% in 30 years.

I wonder about that statistic. Not the validity of it. Numbers are numbers. It is obvious from the culture changes I have lived through and the change in the stories of Working Class guys & gals, that unions do not play the same role as they did in the 1950’s.

I wonder what those Union guys & gals of the 50’s & 60’s taught their children. Did they teach their families that Union jobs were the future? Did they help their children see a Union job as a worthy goal?
Or . . . did our parents and grandparents aspirations for the next generation tend towards doctors, lawyers and managers?

My father was an accountant. Working for Oregon Steel, office staff was not unionized, he saw up close the benefits of belonging to a Union. He taught me about those benefits decades before he ever had the opportunity to belong to a Union.

If these past laborers were not teaching and preaching Unions, why not? I believe wanting their children to be doctors and lawyers was only part of the answer; and not the most important part.

The history of several union organizations was organizers doing everything for the members. Those unions had organizers (business agents) that made sure every new employee was introduced to the union and the reasons why. Before the days of direct deposit and automatic withdraws the business agent came around to each and every members house or flat to collect their dues. Union organizers negotiated collective bargaining agreements, sometimes without members present. They did everything. Union members let them.


Our Union adopted, by a vote of the members, a different organizing model. The old model was a ‘business agent’ model. We got by, but we never had enough business agents, organizers. Members needed to step up to fill the gaps. Several years ago We adopted a Member Organizer model. We are the members, the organizers.

No one knows the worksite like the worker: Us. We know the issues. We live and work the issues. We know that some issues are unique to our shop. We know that some issues are common to all offices.

Our members are the subject matter experts. We are the best witnesses in the Oregon Legislature when our legislators need to know more about the state of our services. We know our clients better than most. We know where the resources are and are not. We walk our parks and drive our highways every day. We know not only where the wildlife live, we know how many live there. We are our state’s best advocate. We can be our own best advocate.

There are more than a few who do not advocate, do not appreciate this new organizing model. Some still want their organizer to do the work of the Union. They want their money’s worth. This brings me back to the Union members of the past generations; those Union members who did not teach their kids about their Unions. I said that wanting their children to do other work was not the most important part of why they did not teach the Union.

What could be worse than not having a Union to stand by you, is having a union that does not hear you. A union that is not interested in what you think. Imagine having an automated job where the boss does not want your input. Add to that a union that collects your dues, bargains your contracts and decides whether or not to air your grievances without you.

The most important part of the story is they wanted their children to work where they had a say; where they could help create the product, the service. They wanted their inheritors to have the opportunity to create a better world, not just take orders. Those who did not teach their children about their union did not see the union as being about them. Those workers did not help create their union; they did not help organize their world.


Our Union wants your input. ODOT Local 730, SEIU 503, OPEU is always looking for more members to decide to become Member Organizers. Our Member Organizers act as shop stewards. We work in the Union’s legislative & executive bodies: General Council and the Board of Directors. Through CAPE our members work the political process. Member Organizers work out of state helping other workers find their voices. We need Member Organizers to work in our home towns and community actions centers.

I can tell you that working in our Union feels like community. Many folks going different directions, doing different jobs for the same purpose: to improve the lives of laborers. To create a better community, a better world.

If you are looking to create your world, we are looking for you. mac

Union Members Tell Management Latest Proposal is Bad Deal

12 ODOT Employees at the Flanders building spoke with Jason Tell, the ODOT Region 1 Manager and let him know that the latest management proposal was unfair and would send many folks back into poverty. In this picture Ellen Dennis, our shop steward, explains how this pay cut would affect folks in her building.