The budget stalemate at the Capitol is bringing contract negotiations between the Pawlenty administration and state employee unions to a crawl.
AFSCME Council 5, which represents 19,000 state workers, has cancelled six days of negotiations on its contracts, including three scheduled for June 6-8. The Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, which represents 11,100 state workers, cancelled talks scheduled for June 9 and 10. That doesn?t cover coalition negotiations on health insurance ? covering more than 41,000 state employees in 10 unions ? that were canceled June 2 and 3.
AFSCME will not resume negotiations until the Legislature wraps up its special session, said Council 5 director Eliot Seide. "Right now, we don't know what the budget will be," which makes it impossible to discuss economic issues in any detail, he said.
The contracts for all state employees, including those at Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, expire on June 30, at the end of the state's two-year budget cycle. Negotiations for AFSCME and MAPE typically set the pattern for other, smaller unions.
But with major budget bills unresolved for Transportation, Human Services and other state agencies, "it doesn?t make much sense to go forward while we're still fighting to avoid layoffs," said MAPE's executive director, Jim Monroe.
State wants more concessions
With budget numbers in flux, neither AFSCME, MAPE nor the state has made a wage proposal. Unions still hope the Legislature will appropriate a salary supplement ? an idea that cleared the Senate during the regular legislative session, but not the House. Rank-and-file state workers have gone two years without across-the-board pay raises.
Unions are also hoping to avoid further layoffs in state agencies. Seide said Gov. Tim Pawlenty's base budget proposal could erase 800 more state jobs, on top of the more than 900 jobs eliminated since 2001.
Meanwhile, unions have been busy fighting off state demands for concessions in overtime pay, layoff rights, retirement benefits and other areas. For example, the state wants to eliminate paid overtime in nearly all situations that exceed federal minimums; weaken layoff policies, especially for seasonal employees; and eliminate early retirement incentives in the Department of Corrections and State Patrol.
Health insurance: More of less
The sharpest battle lines, however, are over health insurance. "We're about as far apart as we can be," Monroe said.
While unions are trying to make insurance more affordable and accessible, the state continues trying to shift more costs onto employees.
State proposals include forcing employees to pay anywhere from $170 to $800 more upfront before their insurance benefit even kicks in. In addition to these increases in what are called "first dollar deductibles," the state also wants employees to pay more in monthly premiums and more in out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, office visits, emergency room visits, outpatient surgery and hospital admissions.
Most of the union coalition is proposing a new idea that bases insurance premiums on a sliding scale matched to salary. The proposal recognizes that a $107 premium payment has a bigger impact on workers making $575 a week than on workers making three times that amount.
Under this proposal, premiums would rise only for workers whose salaries exceed $100,000. State workers with salaries below $80,000 actually could see their premiums decrease.
"There's no reason that commissioners and the governor shouldn't be paying the same percentage for health insurance that our members pay," Seide said. "It's a progressive solution that makes those that make more pay a little more."
Other unions in the coalition want employee premium costs frozen at current rates. Under both approaches, the state would pick up additional premium costs in both 2006 and 2007. The state has not said what those premiums would be.
Overall, the unions are seeking to restore benefit levels to what they were before the current contract took effect, including restoring broader access to the most affordable clinics and regaining meaningful benefits in the state's dental plan.
Adapted from The Union Advocate, the official newspaper of the St. Paul Trades and Labor Assembly. E-mail The Advocate at: zadvocate@mtn.org
Share
The budget stalemate at the Capitol is bringing contract negotiations between the Pawlenty administration and state employee unions to a crawl.
AFSCME Council 5, which represents 19,000 state workers, has cancelled six days of negotiations on its contracts, including three scheduled for June 6-8. The Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, which represents 11,100 state workers, cancelled talks scheduled for June 9 and 10. That doesn?t cover coalition negotiations on health insurance ? covering more than 41,000 state employees in 10 unions ? that were canceled June 2 and 3.
AFSCME will not resume negotiations until the Legislature wraps up its special session, said Council 5 director Eliot Seide. “Right now, we don’t know what the budget will be,” which makes it impossible to discuss economic issues in any detail, he said.
The contracts for all state employees, including those at Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, expire on June 30, at the end of the state’s two-year budget cycle. Negotiations for AFSCME and MAPE typically set the pattern for other, smaller unions.
But with major budget bills unresolved for Transportation, Human Services and other state agencies, “it doesn?t make much sense to go forward while we’re still fighting to avoid layoffs,” said MAPE’s executive director, Jim Monroe.
State wants more concessions
With budget numbers in flux, neither AFSCME, MAPE nor the state has made a wage proposal. Unions still hope the Legislature will appropriate a salary supplement ? an idea that cleared the Senate during the regular legislative session, but not the House. Rank-and-file state workers have gone two years without across-the-board pay raises.
Unions are also hoping to avoid further layoffs in state agencies. Seide said Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s base budget proposal could erase 800 more state jobs, on top of the more than 900 jobs eliminated since 2001.
Meanwhile, unions have been busy fighting off state demands for concessions in overtime pay, layoff rights, retirement benefits and other areas. For example, the state wants to eliminate paid overtime in nearly all situations that exceed federal minimums; weaken layoff policies, especially for seasonal employees; and eliminate early retirement incentives in the Department of Corrections and State Patrol.
Health insurance: More of less
The sharpest battle lines, however, are over health insurance. “We’re about as far apart as we can be,” Monroe said.
While unions are trying to make insurance more affordable and accessible, the state continues trying to shift more costs onto employees.
State proposals include forcing employees to pay anywhere from $170 to $800 more upfront before their insurance benefit even kicks in. In addition to these increases in what are called “first dollar deductibles,” the state also wants employees to pay more in monthly premiums and more in out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, office visits, emergency room visits, outpatient surgery and hospital admissions.
Most of the union coalition is proposing a new idea that bases insurance premiums on a sliding scale matched to salary. The proposal recognizes that a $107 premium payment has a bigger impact on workers making $575 a week than on workers making three times that amount.
Under this proposal, premiums would rise only for workers whose salaries exceed $100,000. State workers with salaries below $80,000 actually could see their premiums decrease.
“There’s no reason that commissioners and the governor shouldn’t be paying the same percentage for health insurance that our members pay,” Seide said. “It’s a progressive solution that makes those that make more pay a little more.”
Other unions in the coalition want employee premium costs frozen at current rates. Under both approaches, the state would pick up additional premium costs in both 2006 and 2007. The state has not said what those premiums would be.
Overall, the unions are seeking to restore benefit levels to what they were before the current contract took effect, including restoring broader access to the most affordable clinics and regaining meaningful benefits in the state’s dental plan.
Adapted from The Union Advocate, the official newspaper of the St. Paul Trades and Labor Assembly. E-mail The Advocate at: zadvocate@mtn.org