Legislature(2019 - 2020)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/17/2020 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presenation: Labor Contracts and Monetary Terms | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 17, 2020
9:01 a.m.
9:01:10 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair von Imhof called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Natasha von Imhof, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
ALSO PRESENT
Kate Sheehan, Director of Personnel and Labor Relations,
Department of Administration; Senator Cathy Giessel.
SUMMARY
PRESENATION: LABOR CONTRACTS and MONETARY TERMS
Co-Chair von Imhof relayed that the committee would hear
from the Department of Administration (DOA) on labor
contracts, get an update on recent negotiations, and look
at how state employee pay and benefits had changed over
time. She remarked that as the state's savings were
depleted and discussions of cash-flow became more
important, she believed that it was critical to take a
close look at personnel costs.
Co-Chair von Imhof thanked Commissioner Tshibaka and her
team for working closely with the co-chairs' offices to put
the presentation information together. She had asked the
commissioner to provide the committee with a granular look
at pay and benefits for the various bargaining units over
time to help give the committee a sense of personnel-
related cost drivers.
Co-Chair von Imhof suggested that as the largest employer
in Alaska, state government needed to balance cost
containment against being a competitive employer that could
attract talent to serve the public as efficiently and
effectively as possible. She stated that as the legislature
considered a spending cap and looked at the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) and inflation, there were other cost drivers
that could rise faster and crowd out other costs as state
spending approached a cap.
^PRESENATION: LABOR CONTRACTS and MONETARY TERMS
9:03:19 AM
KATE SHEEHAN, DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL AND LABOR RELATIONS,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, commented that the
presentation would review some bargaining agreements, what
the division would be working on in the upcoming fall, and
would take a close look at salaries over the previous ten
years. She reminded that the state was required to bargain
wages, hours, and terms of conditions of employment as
found in the Public Employment Relations Act. She
referenced AS 23.40. Under statute, DOA chose what to
bargain, and any changes to what was bargained needed to be
done through legislation.
Ms. Sheehan discussed the presentation "Labor Contracts,"
(copy on file).
Ms. Sheehan read slide 2, "Bargaining Unit Acronyms
ACOA - Alaska Correctional Officers Association
APEA - Alaska Public Employees Association
ASEA - Alaska State Employees Association
AVTECTA - Alaska Vocational Technical Center Teachers'
Association
CEA - Confidential Employees Association
IBU - Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific
LTC - Labor, Trades, and Crafts
MEBA - Marine Engineers Beneficial Association
MMP - Masters, Mates, and Pilots
PSEA (AA) - Public Safety Employees Association
(Troopers, Court Service Officers, Deputy Fire
Marshalls)
PSEA (AP) - Public Safety Employees Association
(Airport Police and Fire Officers)
TEAME - Teachers Education Associations at Mt.
Edgecumbe
Ms. Sheehan spoke to slide 3, "Important Definitions":
COLA - Cost of Living Adjustment
Steps - Steps A-F/G, awarded every year
Pay Increments - Step J and above awarded every other
year with acceptable or higher performance
Ms. Sheehan noted that COLA was bargained with each union
and done with legislation for the partially exempt. She
added that COLA was also put into the state personnel act.
Most employees received merit steps and pay increments.
Merit steps were received every other year with or without
a performance evaluation, and the steps were an average of
about 3.5 percent. The only groups that did not receive the
steps and pay increments were the three marine vessel
employee types, and the teachers and instructors at Alaska
Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC). She detailed that an
employee performance evaluation was required to receive a
pay increment, which were either 3.25 percent or 3.75
percent depending upon the collective bargaining agreement.
There were previously longevity steps, which changed to pay
increments in 2009.
9:07:35 AM
Ms. Sheehan referenced slide 4, "Bargaining Update":
Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific:
? 0/1.5/1.5 COLA
? $210 lump sum payment if enrolled in the Employee
Only Economy Plan in January 2022
? $570 lump sum payment if enrolled in the Employee
Plus Family Economy Plan in January 2022
? Employees begin contributions to healthcare
Length of Agreement: 2019-2022
AK Vocational Technical Center Teachers' Association:
? 0/1.5/1.5 COLA
? $350 lump sum payment in July 2020
? Hours transferred from Union Hour Leave Bank
? Length of Agreement: 2019-2022
Ms. Sheehan noted that the two contracts on the slide were
currently before the legislature for approval. She recalled
that there had been a strike that was successfully mediated
the previous August. For IBU, a COLA of 1.5 percent was
about $600,000. The department had also bargained employee
contributions, which was new for IBU.
Ms. Sheehan informed that there had been a federal
mediation to reach agreement on the contract for the Alaska
Vocational Technical Center Teachers' Association
(AVTECTA).
Co-Chair von Imhof asked if people that lived in Alaska
received COLA or if residency affected COLA.
Ms. Sheehan informed that COLA was for all employees in the
bargaining unit. She noted that the marine unions had a
cost of living differential (COLD) which was for residents
versus non-residents. State residents received a higher
hourly rate than non-residents. Marine Engineers and
Masters, Mates and Pilots (MMP) received a lump sum given
with each pay period and more money was given for residing
within the state.
Senator Olson thought he had heard Ms. Sheehan comment that
a 1.5 percent COLA was equivalent to $50,000.
Ms. Sheehan clarified that the COLA was equivalent to
$600,000 for the Inlandboatmen's Union and $50,000 for the
AVTEC Teacher's Association.
Senator Olson asked if the unions were getting the funds
every year.
Ms. Sheehan answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair von Imhof clarified that that the whole bargaining
unit received the funds rather than each person.
9:11:06 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof asked about employee healthcare
contributions for the Inlandboatmen's Union. She asked
about the percentage of the monthly premium.
Ms. Sheehan relayed that the state had only recently
started bargaining employee contributions. Previously a
person under the economy plan in AlaskaCare made no
contribution. There was only one union that did not have a
contribution in AlaskaCare. The rate would vary according
to each union. There was currently an 8 to 9 percent
employee contribution.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked if the two unions paid 8 to 9
percent or if the amount was an average.
Ms. Sheehan stated that the amount was an average across
unions. The goal was for all unions to have the same
language and consistency.
Co-Chair von Imhof considered federal pay and had found
that federal employees paid 20 percent of healthcare costs.
Ms. Sheehan did not know what federal employees paid. There
were two different plans under AlaskaCare, and those that
enrolled in the standard plan paid more than those enrolled
in the economy plan. She offered to provide the information
at a later time.
Co-Chair von Imhof affirmed that she would like comparative
numbers to gain an understanding of different plans
available in the state. She thought it was interesting to
see how the state stood in comparison to other entities.
Ms. Sheehan turned to slide 5, "Bargaining Schedule and
Detail," which showed a table that listed the total number
of employees and percentage of the total employees. She
noted that the state was currently bargaining with the
Public Safety Employees Association (PSEA), the Marine
Engineers Beneficial Association, and MMP. All three
bargaining units were set to expire on June 30, 2020. In
the fall the department would start negotiations with the
Alaska Correctional Officers Association; Labor, Trades and
Crafts (LTC); and the Alaska Public Employees Association
(APEA).
Ms. Sheehan continued that in the fall of 2021,
negotiations would begin with the teachers of Mt.
Edgecumbe, AVTECTA, the Alaska State Employees Association
(ASEA), the confidential employees, and the Inlandboatmen's
Union. She pointed out that the largest number of employees
were in ASEA. She pointed out the number of non-covered
employees was listed, which were exempt, partially exempt,
and excluded. Excluded employees were classified employees
not represented. The only excluded employees were the staff
of the Alaska Labor Relations Agency, with about three or
four employees. Any pay increases to the partially exempt
were done through legislation.
9:15:30 AM
Senator Wilson asked if market-based pay study had been
conducted.
Ms. Sheehan stated that a pay study had been done for the
Alaska State Troopers class series, and had increased the
series by one range, or approximately 7.5 percent. There
was an additional COLA adjustment of 7.5 percent.
Additionally, the department was finishing up a large nurse
market-based pay study. The adjustment was one to two
ranges up, depending upon the job. The jobs were primarily
with in the Department of Health and Social Services and
the Department of Corrections (DOC).
Senator Wilson asked if there were additional pay studies
forthcoming.
Ms. Sheehan stated that the department was working on
classification studies and had recently finished studies
for police officers and other positions. She offered to
provide a complete list of the studies and positions
involved.
Ms. Sheehan considered slide 6, "Benefits":
? Health Benefits:
? Employee Premium contribution
? Health Trusts:
? State of Alaska contributing at a rate which seeks
balance
Pension:
? Defined benefit and defined contribution plans
Ms. Sheehan noted that there were four health trusts: MMP,
PSEA, ASEA, and LTC. Recently the PSEA joined the health
trust for ASEA. She understood that there were employee
contributions in the health trusts but did not know the
contribution level. She noted that pension was not
bargained and pointed out that the Marine Engineers
Beneficial Association was not part of PERS, and its
pension contribution was bargained.
9:18:21 AM
Ms. Sheehan displayed slide 7, "State Contribution to
Health Trust/ Health Insurance," which showed a data table
displaying current health insurance rates and types. She
noted that starting in July 2020, all employees in
AlaskaCare and the trusts were up to the cost of $1,555.
She pointed out that MMP was still at the last negotiated
rate of $1,346 after not being able to reach a new
agreement.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked if Ms. Sheehan knew what the trust
was able to negotiate with healthcare providers. She asked
who would receive any potential savings.
Ms. Sheehan stated that there was bargaining language where
the trust would have to provide enough information for the
state's actuary to make a decision. The goal was to neither
overfund nor underfund the trust. It had been found that
the trust was likely overfunded for years because of the
formula being used. The actuaries would receive the
information and arrive at the appropriate amount to fund
the trust. She would provide further information about who
might receive any savings, and a list of the information
that the trust was required to provide.
Co-Chair von Imhof wondered about the amount of
overfunding. She understood that healthcare trust's
financials were not public.
Ms. Sheehan affirmed that the trust's financials were not
public.
Co-Chair von Imhof wondered if the financial information
could be made public through legislation.
Ms. Sheehan did not know.
Senator Bishop thought certain trusts were confidential.
Ms. Sheehan knew that MMP was a multi-employer trust with
confidential information.
Co-Chair von Imhof thought as the state considered rising
costs and a spending cap, it was tough when public dollars
were spent without information. She reiterated her question
about any potential gap between the state dollars and the
expense.
Ms. Sheehan highlighted slide 8, "Employee Counts," which
showed a table of employee counts in the executive branch.
She pointed out that the table listed actual employees that
received a paycheck, rather than position counts. The slide
included full time, part-time, and non-permanent employees.
She clarified that non-permanent employees could work from
a month or two up to twelve months.
Senator Bishop looked at the employee count and asked if
the total included covered and non-covered employees.
Ms. Sheehan answered in the affirmative.
Senator Bishop thought there were about 12,600 employees in
2009; and the current count was about 12,277.
Senator Wielechowski asked if there was a count of employee
vacancies.
Ms. Sheehan did not have the information at hand but
offered to provide it at a later time.
9:23:48 AM
Ms. Sheehan looked at slide 9, "FY2019 All Bargaining Units
Comparison," which showed a table. She informed that the
slide related to a four-page document entitled "Bargaining
Unit Comparison 2009-2019" (copy on file). The first column
showed bargaining units. Only permanent full-time employees
were used for the data. She explained that the COLA would
reflect whatever was bargained in the year; and she pointed
out that in 2019 there were no COLAs bargained. The steps
previously mentioned were 3.5 percent, and if the column
showed "n/a" it meant there was no merit steps or pay
increases such as in the three marine unions. Any increases
were through a COLA. She noted that the teachers at AVTEC
and Mt. Edgecumbe had a step structure like other teacher
collective bargaining agreements.
Ms. Sheehan stated that pay increments were 3.75 percent or
3.25 percent. Most pay increments did not have a cap. She
looked at the fiscal year overtime pay column, which showed
all overtime pay for the year for each bargaining unit. The
next columns showed the number of employees paid overtime,
and the average paid per employee. She looked at the "FY
Gross Pay" column, which included any terminal leave or
leave cash-ins. She made note of the two columns showing
SBS employer contributions, (6.13 percent), and the average
contribution per employee. She highlighted the columns
showing PERS contributions and health insurance.
9:27:25 AM
Ms. Sheehan continued to address slide 9. She highlighted
columns that showed gross totals for SBS, PERS and health
insurance. Other columns averaged the cost per employee.
There was a comparison of the total gross SBS percentage
compared to the CPI. She pointed out that the table started
in 2009. She pointed out that between 2017 and 2018, the
total gross SBS, PERS, and health insurance change per
employee had been significantly increased. The shift was
attributed to a change in data systems, resulting in a lost
pay period. Starting in 2018, the data reflected an
additional pay period.
9:29:22 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked if there had been an increase or
decrease in cost when the state went from twice monthly pay
periods to a bi-weekly pay system.
Ms. Sheehan stated that not all employees were moved to a
bi-weekly pay schedule. The department was looking to
convert all groups June 1, 2020.
Senator Wielechowski asked if Ms. Sheehan could provide
some numbers. He recalled that the court system had
estimated the change would cost an additional $247,000 to
switch to bi-weekly payroll.
Co-Chair von Imhof understood that when any company changed
pay systems there would be a cost shift in the first year
because of the last paycheck. She thought there should not
be a recurring increase in expense. She emphasized the need
for one system.
Senator Wielechowski reiterated that he wanted to know the
cost to the state.
Co-Chair von Imhof referenced the document showing ten
years of historical costs. She asked about payment steps of
3.5 percent, and the total costs and asked how the math
worked out.
Ms. Sheehan stated that not all employees would get a pay
increment or merit step every year. She noted that the
merit steps and payment increments were not funded because
of vacancies. She could not explain all the percentages and
acknowledged that some looked strange. She pondered that
number of employees, gross pay, and the COLAs were
different at different times.
9:33:00 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof asked Ms. Sheehan to look at previous
years when the percentages were higher. She thought it was
interesting that the steps were higher than the Alaska CPI.
She thought it appeared that a good portion of employees
had received overtime pay for the last decade. She wondered
if the practice could be managed to save the state funds.
Ms. Sheehan believed in some cases the amount of overtime
could be managed, but in other cases could not because of
staffing requirements. She referenced minimum staffing
levels for correctional facilities and other 24-hour
institutions. She mentioned overtime for IT personnel. She
thought the amount of overtime differed by division but in
many cases was due to lack of staff.
Co-Chair von Imhof observed that at least half of ASEA
members received overtime each year, and it had been
consistent each year.
Ms. Sheehan noted that many of the employees in ASEA were
eligible for overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked Ms. Sheehan to describe "eligible
for overtime" employees.
Ms. Sheehan stated that the ASEA was the broadest group and
employees and included nurses, office assistants,
psychiatric nurse aids, children's support specialists,
eligibility technicians, and engineers. The members of ASEA
was the most diverse group, and because of the types of
jobs they were eligible for overtime. Many of the members,
such as engineers, worked extraordinarily long hours; as
did nurses.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked if the employees were salaried or
hourly.
Ms. Sheehan thought that most were paid hourly.
Senator Bishop thought there was a lot "baked in" to the
overtime statistics. He used the example of competitiveness
to the private sector. He thought there were some
bargaining units in which you could make almost twice as
much by working for the private sector. He thought the
matter should be investigated.
Co-Chair von Imhof commented that as healthcare costs went
up, not paying any healthcare premium or paying 8 percent
to 9 percent was very attractive.
9:38:13 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked if any of the employees
voluntarily worked overtime hours if they were ordered to
do so.
Ms. Sheehan stated that overtime was mandatory for many of
the employees being discussed.
Senator Wielechowski asked if Ms. Sheehan could quantify
the number of employees required to do overtime.
Ms. Sheehan offered to try and find the information.
Co-Chair von Imhof clarified that the overtime pay did not
include those who worked four 10-hour shifts.
Ms. Sheehan stated that there were different alternate
work-week agreements. She used the example of the Alaska
State Troopers. Many unions did not have daily overtime but
did have weekly overtime. The overtime was adjusted
depending upon the schedule.
Co-Chair von Imhof understood that with some employees,
overtime was unavoidable. She believed that it had been
consistent over the last ten years. She thought it was
either part of the standard operating procedure or that
overtime had not been managed well in some cases.
Ms. Sheehan addressed slide 10, "All Bargaining Units
Comparison: Wages and Health Insurance," which showed a bar
graph providing another form of comparison. She pointed out
that the wages and health insurance benefits were shown as
a share of the total compensation for ten years. The gross
pay was clearly the largest employer contribution, followed
by health insurance.
Ms. Sheehan advanced to slide 11, "All Bargaining Units
Comparison: Wages and Health Insurance," which showed a bar
graph comparing the average employee pay and benefits. The
information was taken from the document provided to members
and showed the average pay per employee was not adjusted
for inflation.
Ms. Sheehan looked at slide 12, "All Bargaining Units
Comparison: Wages and Health Insurance," which showed a bar
graph that depicted the same information as the previous
slide but adjusted for CPI.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked what it would look like if there
was a line drawn to depict the CPI.
Ms. Sheehan thought the depiction would fluctuate. She
noted that the department was working on the slide and had
some difficulty with the data. She intended on finishing
slides and providing them to the committee later in the
week.
9:41:47 AM
Ms. Sheehan noted that the following slides looked at the
same information on the document, broken out by collective
bargaining unit. Instead of comparing them on one slide,
each slide showed year to year for each union. All eleven
unions were represented in a separate slide.
Ms. Sheehan showed slide 13, "Bargaining Unit Comparison -
Alaska Correctional Officers Association."
Co-Chair von Imhof thought it was helpful to see the
different unions. She looked at the average hourly overtime
pay, which started at $4,000 per employee in 2009 and was
currently at about $10,000. She asked if the change was due
to labor shortages, or overtime. She noted that the number
of employees had not jumped. She questioned whether there
was a significant employee shortage, why were employees
working longer hours, and why it was costing more money.
She wondered what DOC could do to help mitigate the
situation. She referenced the plan to reopen the Palmer
Correctional Center and wondered how the state would find
the funds.
Ms. Sheehan understood that because of minimum staffing and
not being fully staffed, there was a lot more overtime at
the institutions. She noted that the department was doing a
new type of recruitment and thought if more officers were
hired it would reduce overtime. She was happy to follow up
with the department and get back to the committee with
further information.
Co-Chair von Imhof thought that the percentage of people
doing overtime versus full-time employees had been steady
for the last decade. She wondered if the department had
been understaffed the whole time.
Ms. Sheehan thought there had been perpetually under-
staffing. She noted that correctional officers signed up
for overtime during weeks off. Additionally, the officers
worked automatic overtime when a 12-hour shift was extended
to 16 hours. Some institutions were more chronically
understaffed than others. She offered to get more
information from the department.
Co-Chair von Imhof thought it would be nice to know if the
mandatory overtime was a bargained concept, or if it was
for another reason.
Ms. Sheehan affirmed that overtime and holdover language
was bargained.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked if overtime and holdover language
was bargained for all unions.
Ms. Sheehan did not know and stated that every contract was
slightly different.
9:46:05 AM
Ms. Sheehan referenced slide 14, "Bargaining Unit
Comparison - Alaska Public Employees Association," which
showed a table with a year by year comparison. She noted
that APEA was the supervisor's union. At the top, the table
showed the standard work week. For APEA, there was a
bargained change from a 37.5-hour work week to a 40-hour
work week for an approximate cost of 6.6 percent. The other
unions on a 40-hour work week were PSEA, the Confidential
Employee's Association (CEA), and LTC.
Ms. Sheehan turned to slide 15, "Bargaining Unit Comparison
- Alaska State Employees Association," which showed a
table. She noted that the ASEA standard work week was 37.5
hours, but there were some class 1 employees at 40 hours.
Ms. Sheehan considered slide 16, "Bargaining Unit
Comparison - Alaska Vocational Technical Center Teachers'
Association," which showed a table. the AVTECTA standard
work week was 7.5-hour days, 5 days a week.
Ms. Sheehan displayed slide 17, "Bargaining Unit Comparison
- Confidential Employees Association," which showed a
table. The CEA moved to a 40-hour work week the previous
year and did not receive a COLA for the year.
Ms. Sheehan highlighted slide 18, "Bargaining Unit
Comparison - Inlandboatmen's Union," which showed a table.
She noted that the IBU employees worked week-on/week-off
for 84 hours per week.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked if the IBU employees were
currently working.
Ms. Sheehan stated that some of the employees were working.
Senator Wielechowski asked if IBU employees were still paid
if the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) ships were not
running.
Ms. Sheehan stated that some employees needed to be on a
vessel to make sure it was safe. There was a much-reduced
workforce when ships were in layup or at the dock, and
employees that were not working did not get paid.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked if there would be overtime paid
when employees were on a ship that was not sailing.
Ms. Sheehan stated that marine vessel employees would
receive overtime if there was an employee to relieve them.
She would inquire and provide further information.
Co-Chair von Imhof thought there should not be overtime
other than for mechanics.
Ms. Sheehan offered to provide the list of vessels and how
many employees were on each.
Ms. Sheehan looked at slide 19, "Bargaining Unit Comparison
- Labor, Trades, and Crafts." She reiterated that LTC had
moved to a 40-hour work week.
Ms. Sheehan addressed slide 20, "Bargaining Unit Comparison
- Marine Engineers Beneficial Association," which showed a
table. She noted that the Marine Engineers Beneficial
Association had a 168-hour assignment and worked two weeks
on/two weeks off like the MMP.
9:49:35 AM
Ms. Sheehan advanced to slide 21, "Bargaining Unit
Comparison - Masters, Mates, and Pilots."
Ms. Sheehan looked at slide 22, "Bargaining Unit Comparison
- Public Safety Employees Association (PSEA-AA)," which
showed a table. She noted that the troopers, court service
officers, and fire marshals worked a 40-hour week.
Ms. Sheehan spoke to slide 23, "Bargaining Unit Comparison
- Public Safety Employees Association (PSEA-AP)," which
showed a table. She added that the airport police and fire
officers worked 80 hours in a 14-day work period. In
Fairbanks, the employees were working 24-hour shifts with
three days on and six days off.
Ms. Sheehan referenced slide 24, "Bargaining Unit
Comparison - Teachers Education Association at Mt.
Edgecumbe," which showed a data table that. The teachers
worked a standard work week of 40 hours.
Ms. Sheehan displayed slide 25, "Department of
Administration - Championing improvement in the State's
performance and results."
Senator Wielechowski asked if Ms. Sheehan could provide a
similar spreadsheet that showed exempt employees.
Ms. Sheehan agreed to provide the information.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked about totals in the final slides.
She wondered about COLAs by year and what was in the
aggregate number. She knew that in previous years,
healthcare costs had risen quite a bit. She wanted to know
what was going into the number and if the cumulative
increase was higher than inflation. She looked at the bar
graph on slide 10 and considered the comparison of wages
and health insurance for all bargaining units. She asked
about the status of the Janus decision [a 2018 United
States Supreme Court ruling that limited the power of
unions to collect fees from nonmembers.]
Ms. Sheehan noted that the department was currently
bargaining with some unions to change language that was in
the collective bargaining agreements. There had been
agreements reached under the prior administration with some
unions for some language that did not compel union
membership. There was outdated contract language that
parties were not following because it was illegal after the
ruling. There was a temporary restraining order, and no
practice had been changed other than membership was not
compulsory. Dues were not collected unless an employee
signed up for membership in a union.
9:53:14 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof asked how the state knew which employees
signed up.
Ms. Sheehan informed that employees could sign up with the
union, and a form was forwarded to the division of finance.
If an employee never wanted to become a member, the dues
were never set up as a deduction.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked if there were approximately 15,000
forms in the department's possession.
Ms. Sheehan stated that the department had all the forms of
those employees that had signed up to be members.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked how many forms the department had.
Ms. Sheehan did not have the information but agreed to
provide the number at a later time.
Senator Wilson asked how many members had turned in forms
versus how many had opted out of union membership.
Ms. Sheehan stated she would get the information for
Senator Wilson.
Co-Chair von Imhof looked at slide 5, which showed the
number of employees in 2019 for each bargaining unit. She
asked if the forms would need to be renewed each year.
Ms. Sheehan thought part of the pending lawsuit concerned
how often the form would have to be renewed. Each union had
a slightly different form.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked if the forms were paper or
electronic.
Ms. Sheehan stated that the form was paper.
9:55:10 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked if there was savings to the
state if an employee decided not to be represented by a
collective bargaining unit.
Ms. Sheehan was not aware of savings to the state.
Co-Chair von Imhof thought the question was debatable. She
questioned the savings of other states that had
incorporated the Janus decision. She thought there was not
sufficient time to address the topic.
Ms. Sheehan stated that employee time processing had
remained the same. She thought other states had proceeded
differently.
Co-Chair von Imhof thought the act of collecting dues on
behalf of unions using state payroll was not the expensive
part of the process. She discussed the union's role in
collecting dues.
Ms. Sheehan affirmed that there was staff dedicated to the
processing of the forms.
Senator Wielechowski thought there was no savings to the
state if someone did not become a member of a union.
Ms. Sheehan relayed that the state must pay whatever was
agreed to in the collective bargaining agreement.
Senator Wielechowski assumed that the union had to keep
representing the employee even if she or he was not paying
dues.
Ms. Sheehan answered in the affirmative. She stated that
under the Janus decision, the union would still be the
exclusive representative.
Senator Hoffman asked if the area cost differentials for
troopers in rural areas of the state calculated into the
numbers on the slide showing PSEA data.
Ms. Sheehan answered in the affirmative and stated the
differentials would be part of the gross pay.
Co-Chair von Imhof discussed the agenda for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
9:58:10 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 9:58 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 021720 DOA 2020 Legislative Presentation SFIN.pdf |
SFIN 2/17/2020 9:00:00 AM |
Labor Contracts 2020 |
| 021720 BU Profile Comparison FY 09-19-Senator VonImhof-January 2020.pdf |
SFIN 2/17/2020 9:00:00 AM |
Labor Contracts 2020 |