The Case for Voting NO on the Tentative Agreement
There’s obviously a lot of very strong feelings around this discussion, and legitimate arguments both for and against accepting the proposal before us. I wanted to briefly talk through what I see as the most salient points against voting to accept, and hear what other people have to say.
So we’re on the same page, some of the most significant proposals in the TA include:
- No general wage adjustment in 2027, but more discussion later about an adjustment in 2028. Critically, this leaves the door open for a wage cut in 2028.
- 1 additional day off in each year of the agreement (which I’m valuing as 0.38% of your salary, since it’s 1/261 of the days we are paid for).
- Preserve 85/15 split on healthcare premiums.
- Changes to telework agreements are subject to grievance process.
- MOU regarding Generative AI, agreeing the state will not use Gen.AI for hiring decisions, and no employee will be laid off due to Gen.AI.
Now I’m going to start with the arguments for voting YES, because we have to understand what we’re risking/giving up with a NO vote.
Under Article 54 of the CBA, “in accordance with RCW 41.80.090, if this Agreement expires while negotiations between the Union and the Employer are underway for a successor Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Agreement will remain in effect for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the expiration date. In other words, the contract itself would remain in force until June 30, 2028, under all terms that were operative on June 30, 2027.
There are several MOUs that expire on June 29, 2027, specifically for this reason, including:
- 24/7 Facility Premium Pay (5%)
- 24/7 Facility Supplemental Basic Shift Premium ($1/hour)
- 24/7 Facility Compensatory Time for Holidays
- CDL holder wellness incentive ($125)
- Equipment Technicians receiving 20% assignment pay prior to Oct. 1, 2024 will continue to receive 20%
If a contract extending these provisions is not ratified prior to June 29, those MOUs go away. The more immediate and pressing deadline, however, is October 1.
Per RCW 41.80.010(3), the legislature is prohibited from considering a request for funds to implement a CBA unless the request is transmitted to the legislature as part of the governor's budget, which must have been submitted to the director of the office of financial management by October 1 prior to the legislative session at which the requests are to be considered. In plain language, we have to have an agreement by Oct. 1 for any financial agreements to be included in the budget.
A question I need more clarity on is whether this would also apply to healthcare premiums (as was asserted to me by at least one person). The 85/15 split is encoded into the CBA under Article 43. However, if the legislature chooses not to allocate new funds to cover increased premiums, I’m not sure what happens. I would expect that the 85/15 split would remain in effect, but the more I learn about our labor agreements, the more it conflicts with any reasonable expectations. So I’m including this as a risk, and would love for someone who knows for sure to comment.
EDIT: Per u/PresidentofWPEA and u/Rodfjell, the 85/15 split would remain intact during the 27-28 fiscal year if a new contract isn't ratified, and I'm inclined to believe them. I'm crossing this point off my summary, below.
Voting the TA down would likely (but not definitely) lock in some kind of financial loss, at least for some people, in the short term.
In any case, the final risk I see is that if we vote this agreement down, OFM can walk away from the bargaining table and it may or may not be possible to get them to come back anytime soon.
In summary: rejecting the contract means a likely 5% paycut for workers in 24/7 facilities, possible healthcare premium increases, loss of non-economic benefits, and perhaps most critically the risk that after negotiating more we actually end up with a worse deal, especially if the budget continues to get worse.
Now the case for voting no.
I don’t think it’s news to anyone here that we’ve been losing ground to inflation for literally decades. I’ve looked at wage adjustments and inflation data going back to the late 1980s, and we’ve lost about a third of our salaries to inflation due to subpar wage adjustments. OFM is incredibly good at shortchanging us while offering just enough of a benefit that a majority feel obligated to vote yes because something is always better than nothing. Well now they are offering us nothing, which means we have less to lose than with any other contract in recent memory.
Many of us are at or near the breaking point, financially, and voting down a contract carries risk. It feels scary. But making that choice to do something different is the only way that things will ever change. And as long as we continue to take the same path of least resistance, there is no incentive for the administration to ever treat us as anything but a punching bag.
I want to particularly emphasize: if the millionaire tax is struck down, ratifying the agreement will give us no protection from furloughs, layoffs, or pay cuts; we've had plenty of those during prior contracts. By the same measure, demanding fair pay does not require furloughs or layoffs either. If the governor/legislature thinks furloughs or layoffs are necessary, and they can get away with them, they will do it. Regardless of what our contract says. We’ve had contracts for years, and we’ve experienced plenty of both. The only thing that will protect us is to make ourselves an unappealing target. That means we need to be more threatening that a damp fart, which is what we are currently.
Last contract cycle, Teamsters—who have interest arbitration—got 10%, when we got 5%. Right now, they’ve voted down their TA and are asking the arbitrator for 16% over the next biennium (20% for WMS employees). Seattle teachers went on strike and got ~9%. We’re looking at 0%—possibly less. A big old fat goose egg.
Considering what we’re risking, it’s tempting to just give in, protect what we have, and wait for better times. But we cannot expect and will never receive a fair deal as long as we continue to meekly approve unfair and unsustainable contracts. If we want things to change, we need to push back. Fighting when times are tough feels dangerous, but it’s the only time when we can fight and hope to succeed.
I entirely understand the people who feel the risk on them is too great. I don’t blame anyone who feels they have to vote yes. But I equally hope that the majority of you will recognize the necessity of drawing a line in the sand and saying we’re not going to retreat a single step further. We’re going to stand, we’re going to fight, and we’re going to drag OFM and Bob back to the table—kicking and screaming if we have to—to hammer out fair terms; not just for this contract, but for every contract going forward.