Air District Board Approves Contract

At today's Air District Board of Directors meeting, the board unanimously approved the proposed contract.  Next step will be for the EA Negotiation team and Air District sign the contract.  This will probably happen very soon.  

Contract Vote Passes!

Thank you to everyone that participated and voted.  

SPECIAL EDITION Contract Vote July 2017

Message from the President

Dear Members,
  
Today the EA Board voted to recommend ratification of the proposed contract.  

I must recognize and thank our Negotiation Committee who have worked very hard on this proposed contract for the last six months.  Our team has put in countless hours (my guess is somewhere over 1,600 hours), and we have come to an agreement with the Air District, by which at the end of this contract term, members may see up to a 7+% salary increase in two years.  Thank you Robert Cave, Tina McRee, Michael Neward, Michael Wall, Ruby World, Derek Klein and Paul Grazzini.  I truly believe we have negotiated the best contract we can get.    

The proposed contract can be found by clicking this link here.  There is also a fringe benefits calculator you can use to calculate your estimated fringe here.  Check our website for more contract information www.ea-voice.org.

I know there are members that disagree with me, and I know that an underground campaign is being waged to reject this proposed contract.  We need to be realistic and I will make this as blunt as I can.  Voting this contract down will not get you a better contract. Voting it down will likely result in the Air District imposing this proposal, in its current version, for one year.  There is nothing the EA can do to change those circumstances.  

If the Air District were to impose a lousy contract (not the proposed, but something worse), given their current fiscal standing, then we could fight the imposition and most likely prevail, but those aren’t the circumstances we are dealing with.  Our Negotiation Team did the best they can with the Air District for the proposed contract.  Lastly, The Air District negotiated the current proposal in good faith. Thus, reaching an impasse and taking the Air District to arbitration is not a desirable option.   

The currently proposed contract is a good contract.  It helps to address an issue regarding the growing inequity of healthcare costs.  The cafeteria style fringe healthcare system is unsustainable and it puts us in a moral dilemma in which some folks are out of pocket up to $1,000 a month while others are fully covered and getting cash back.  The current system is equal in a sense that it provides the same fringe benefits to single employees or employees with dependents.  The system assumes that every employee needs the same amount of money to maintain the same level of health coverage.  This is clearly not the case for employees with one or more dependents.  Let me say that again, some of our members pay over $1,000 out of pocket to maintain the same level of health coverage. The proposed fringe benefit system is the best attempt at this time to promote fairness by providing employees with dependents more help so they can buy the same health care coverage at reduced out of pocket expenses.  

I also urge you to think long term.  The salary increase of 1% on January 1, 2018 will benefit everyone.  Remember, this salary increase is pensionable on top of the COLA increase during the 2 year contract.  In total, each employee will realize over a 7% increase in salary by the end of this contract.  On the other hand, cash back is not a guarantee and it can go away anytime, and the trend among public agencies has been to do away with it. Lastly, we asked our attorney, who reviews several public agency contracts, stated that our proposed contact is "a pretty good deal" given the trend for public agencies to cover less and less of the costs for family medical coverage, and given the trend for public agencies to provide less and less medical coverage for retirees. 

I have also heard feedback from members that the lower income earners will be harmed by this contract.  To really answer that question, you must define what is meant by harmed.  I would classify harm as a reduction in pay or loss of benefits.  In this contract, everyone sees a salary increase and most the staff have their healthcare benefits covered 100%, so how is anyone harmed? 

There is another issue with lower income earners that we are aware of it.  We have been working on this and we ask for your patience because this cannot be achieved in one contract.  In the words of Derek Klein, “Working at the District shouldn’t allow you to qualify for low income housing”.  The EA is working on this and part of this strategy is these classification studies.  It is important that we complete these classification studies especially for the Office Assistant, Accounting Assistant and Secretaries. 

In closing, I would like to state that we have a fiduciary responsibility to work hard to get the best contract for our members.  I believe we have done that and I encourage you to vote "yes" for this contract (and to sign up for the summer picnic, see below).   

Thank you.
— Chris Coelho, EA President
     eapresident2015@gmail.com

Contract Vote July 13-17

Voting for the contract will be done electronically starting Thursday July 13 at 8:30 a.m. and ending Monday July 17 at 4:00 p.m.  Members will be voting to accept or decline the offer.

Members will receive two emails from SimplyVoting.  The first email will have your unique username and password and the second email will be a link to vote.

You will be getting an email sent to your Air District email from SimplyVoting.com.  If you do not get this email on July 13 on 8:30 a.m., please check your junk or your clutter box.  If you still can't find it, then contact your steward.
 
If you will be out of the office during this period, please email eapresident2015@gmail.com so we can arrange to send the voting link to your personal email address.  

The EA Voice

The EA Voice provides a platform for members to express their opinion.  Providing such a platform encourages a robust consideration of the matter at hand.  The opinions expressed are those of the Author and do not represent the opinion of the EA Board members in any sanctioned manner.  

During and shortly after the July 6 EA General Membership Meeting, a small group of EA members distributed an opinion piece to the membership outside the normal channels provided by the EA By-Laws and procedures. Tamiko Endow then posted a similar opinion piece on the EA Bulletin Board outside of normal channels.   EA member Snigdha Mehta subsequently submitted another version of the article (also included in this addition of The Voice) for distribution according to EA By-Laws and procedures.  

The article below, written by former EA President and current Meet and Confer Team member Paul Grazzini, was submitted for distribution according to the EA By-Laws and procedures and provides a counter-argument to the original opinion piece attributing it to Snigdha. 

Counter Argument to Opinion Piece

By Paul Grazzini:

I believe that the opinion piece sent to EA members urging them to vote "no" for the proposed new MOU is riddled with inaccuracies and I feel I must address these problematic statements.  To make sure your vote for the contract is based on accurate information, it is critical that you read this response before you vote on the proposed new MOU!

First of all, Snigdha’s article starts out by stating that since 1999, our contracts (MOU’s) have become progressively weaker over the years. Without defining the term “weaker”, she leaves the reader to infer that the MOU has become less enforceable and has somehow given away rights and benefits. Where has this happened? The facts provided do not substantiate this claim. The only benefit that has truly eroded during the past 17 years, to any significant degree, is the increase in cost for medical benefits to bargaining unit members with 2 or more dependents. Of course, this phenomenon is not limited to the BAAQMD as increases in costs for medical benefits for families has affected virtually all public agencies in the Bay Area. The proposed MOU extension attempts to address this glaring issue in a fair and equitable manner.

Less for Staff, More for Management:

Snighda also proposes that staff accepted benefit cuts as well as pay cuts during bad economic times to avoid lay-offs. The fact of the matter is that nobody lost benefits, and, 65% of bargaining unit members currently receive 100% medical cost coverage. Staff pay was never cut, rather, we might have negotiated a COLA that was below the CPI-W, or, we might have negotiated a COLA cap that was eventually outpaced by CPI-W. However, to flat-out state that staff accepted benefit cuts and pay cuts is not true. While on the topic of benefit cuts for bargaining unit members, Snighda also mentions that management has given itself raises significantly greater than CPI and/ or compensated itself in other ways (1 to 3 weeks of paid time off with the option to cash it out), whereas staff salaries haven't even kept up with inflation. Now that the economy is doing well and management is considering hiring more staff and buying expensive real estate, shouldn't the staff be compensated equitably? What is meant by equitably? How the Air District operates their budget is the BAAQMD Board’s prerogative and well within the scope of their authority. Furthermore, real estate purchases are one-time costs whereas increases in COLA are a financial liability that roll into perpetuity.

COLA with Low Ceiling & Floor with No Catch-Up Provision:

Snighda states that the EA Board has been told (ostensibly by management) that a cap on COLA is required in the MOU because the Executive Officer must be able to defend the contract when proposing it to the District’s Board of Directors. She goes on to state … “How can management defend double digit increases for itself … but cannot defend a COLA equal to CPI, for the staff?” Since 1999, management salaries have increased 65% to 150%, with an average increase of 138% for APCO and Counsel, and average increase of 94% for rest of the management Since 1999, staff salaries have increased by -60%. Increase in CPI over this period was -61 %. The  COLA provisions in our contracts are negotiated. There is no guarantee that COLA will ever automatically match CPI. What is Snigdha’s definition of equitable? It is a common practice for management to have some level of benefits in excess of staff benefits because management are not hourly employees. Also, in lieu of a benefit taken away from them (known as EPMC) several years ago, management was compensated with additional time off in the form of administrative leave equal to the value of the EPMC benefit. Furthermore, management does not earn overtime pay, union members do. Thus, they are compensated differently than union members. For Snigdha to compare the compensation that bargaining unit employees receive to the APCO and Counsel, who are “At Will” employees and negotiate their compensation package directly with the Board of Directors, is inappropriate. They should not be considered as a comparator to compensation for union members.

Snigdha’s article includes several charts and figures that compare relative salary and COLA increases (since 1999) for bargaining unit employees and for management employees. Another chart depicts annual increases in management base salaries for the same period of time. To begin with, the charts are misleading because they include compensation for the Executive Officer (APCO) and Counsel (reasons stated above). Secondly, the increases in management’s salaries are not based purely on COLA increases as the chart would lead you to believe. Salary modifications have been made to management as a result of classification adjustments and for other reasons.

The chart highlighting the dip in the economy states that bargaining unit staff took a pay cut when the Air District was going through tough economic times, yet management was experiencing significant pay increases. The fact of the matter is that union members were never required to take a reduction in pay as a result of contract negotiations. While the COLA may have fallen behind CPI-W from time to time, that is not the same as a reduction in pay. During the 2012 - 2014 time-frame, the union negotiated a contract that resulted in a COLA that was less than CPI-W for that period. The total cumulative difference for that time-period noted was 1%. The average management increase listed in this graph combines APCO, Counsel, and Management salaries, and, as previously indicated, includes salary increases due to management restructuring as well as COLA. Please note that while COLA increases for bargaining unit members are taken into consideration in the charts, reclassifications and subsequent salary adjustments for union staff have not been considered. The union successfully negotiated several classification changes in the last few years; each of which has resulted in a salary increase for the staff affected. Two examples include upgrades from Supervising Inspector to Supervising AQ Specialist, and Administrative Analyst to Staff Specialist. The bottom line is that the set of compensation data used for management do not include the same set of compensation data used for bargaining unit staff. Furthermore, it should also be noted that the DEO, or Deputy Executive Officer position, did not exist prior to 2015; prior to that year the position was a DAPCO, and thus accounts for the 27.8% increase in pay for her upgraded position.

Fringe Benefit Allowance: Robbing Peter to Pay Paul:

Regarding the statement that the Air District saves approximately $1 Million/year in unused FBA. That is not how FBA money is accounted for. There is no separate account for the FBA, and monies unused do not get rolled over. In other words, there is no savings as money not budgeted for staff salaries and benefits will be used to pay something else (unfunded liabilities and pension funds as an example). The FBA budget is equal to exactly what is estimated to be used by employees. There is no money left over from unused FBA benefits.

Snigdha’s article stated that the new contract would do away with the cash back provision and replace it with a one-time raise of 1 % in the base salary on Jan 1, 2018 and a one-time additional difference of ($ 1200 - 1 % of base salary). There is no make-up provision in the following years (2019+ ). That is correct; that is why it is a “one-time” cash payout. However, the 1% is pensionable, the cashback never has been pensionable. The article also states that lower salaried members receiving cash-back, who have seen no increase in benefits in 14 years will, see a reduction in benefits due to this change. Everyone will gain 1% in salary, cash back recipients get an additional amount of money; lower salaried members receiving cash back already have the benefit of 100% coverage, the cash back is not a function of salary and can go away for any number of reasons; you don’t get the cash back in retirement; and converting it to a salary bump, even if only 1%, makes it pensionable. Lower salaried members have not seen a loss of benefits to the extent that families have. At one time, there was at least one plan that a member could choose that was 100% covered for families. Now there is no family plan where the member is not paying an out-of-pocket cost. As time goes on, more and more plans under the Employee +1 category are falling below the FBA cap. 

The article makes several assertions regarding who stands to gain versus who stands to lose from the deletion of the cash back provision. The bottom line is, at the end of the term of this proposed contract, every employee will be making more than they do now. Possibly up to as much as 7.2+ % more. How is there a loss? How is this a bad contract? Again the cash back is not a function of salary and there are multiple factors (child born, spouse loses job, increases in health insurance costs etc.) that could affect that money.  Another way of putting it: the cash back amount is not guaranteed and a 1% raise is. The real value of the 1% is that it becomes a guaranteed part of your salary that you will receive in retirement.  “The value of that 1% compounds from the day you get it until the day you die; even in retirement”. 

Regarding the article’s comments on FBA caps, using Kaiser as the baseline, and anticipated out of pocket expenses increasing for those with dependents on their medical plan: 48% of members are currently enrolled in Kaiser; 59% of members are enrolled in Kaiser or a cheaper plan. Based on that information, the Air District is pretty well justified in using Kaiser as a baseline, not to mention that Kaiser has the most stable rate over the last 20 years. Under the existing contract, members with one dependent will see a reduction in their cash back benefit as the FBA increase will not match the increase in health care plan costs. Under the proposed cost share plan for the new contract, members with one dependent and paying out of pocket, will see their out of pocket costs significantly reduced. Going forward, as health care costs rise, the people in this category will see an overall savings and have less out-of-pocket costs. The opinion piece states that members with two dependents on Kaiser or a more expensive plan may have to pay even more out-of-pocket, and that single members not currently out of pocket will be forced to switch to Kaiser or pay out-of­-pocket, as health insurance costs rise. These are blatantly false assertions! Members in this category will see a $229 reduction in out-of-pocket costs plus a 1% salary increase that will further offset future health care increases. Single members employed prior to 7/1/17 will still be fully covered under the $1763 cap; this cap is currently 78% higher than the highest cost plan in that category.  Given the average 6% inflation rate this cost will not be exceeded until 2023 and well beyond the scope of this contract.  New employees will be subject to the new cost-share plan, but this is consistent with other public agencies and still offers them a plan or plans where they are 100% covered.

The context of the pie chart that breaks down the % of bargaining unit employees with out of pocket expenses, receiving cash back, etc. is unclear.  If an Air District Board member were to look at it, this pie chart would seem to indicate that 65% of bargaining unit members have 100% of their health benefits covered and receive cash back.  This hardly makes a case to convince the Air District Board to increase the medical benefit allowance for anyone. Additionally, the pie chart fails to represent the degree to which bargaining unit employees are out of pocket for medical coverage. Fortunately, the EA Meet & Confer Team as well as the EA Board recognize that this issue of disparity cannot be broken down quite this simplistically.

The image with the comparison of Peter versus Paul paints an incomplete picture of how the situation for either party actually pans out. First and foremost, it implies that Paul gets paid an extra $540.00; however, this money never gets deposited into Paul’s bank account. Rather, it goes straight to the medical insurance company. The only time Paul sees any of the value of that benefit is when he takes a day off work to take his sick child to the doctor. Also, in addition to the FBA benefit that Paul receives, he has $324 taken out of his paycheck every month to cover the remaining cost of the health insurance (this figure includes Vision and Dental). Accounting for this out-of-pocket expense, Paul’s Net Income is $7,676. Peter doesn’t have to worry about any of that. Peter effectively has a net income of $324 more than Paul. What Peter does with that money is none of Paul’s business. Paul holds no ill will toward Peter and accepts that this income difference is the cost of having multiple dependents. Finally, the money paying for the FBA is not coming out of a pool. Peter is not subsidizing Paul; money is not being taken out of Peter’s paycheck and given to Paul.  Is this equal?  No. Is this equitable?  Yes. Those two terms mean different things. The specific situations of Peter and Paul are subject to change over time. Peter’s partner may lose his/her job, and thus, he/she may have to be added to Peter’s insurance.  In the event this happens, Peter will use more of the allotted FBA.  Likewise, one or more of Paul’s dependents may obtain their own insurance and Paul will no longer need the maximum FBA nor will he have to pay the out of pocket costs that come with it. 

Opinion Piece From EA Members

The following Article was written by EA Members Snigdha Mehta and Tamiko Endow and is not the opinion of the EA Board 

Note: this article is in pdf form and cannot be posted as printed.  The pdf document can be found HERE

Some Things to Consider

Robert Cave – Meet and Confer Committee Chair

My purpose in writing this article is not to convince you how to vote on the proposed Contract Extension, but rather to provide my thoughts and information I have gleaned that can help you decide on your own as a member of the Employees' Association.  This is not to say that this article will be unbiased; far from it.  I do not believe the proposed Contract Extension to be a fair deal given the money that the District shells out for real estate speculation, ill-defined or otherwise useless programs such as the production system and Executive Management in general.  However, I do believe this deal is the best that was available to us given the constraints provided in these negotiations.  Hopefully, the following will inform your decision as to whether you agree with this assessment.

COLA stands for cost of living adjustment, and is a means of ensuring that salaries keep up with inflation.  Six times a year, the US Department of Labor calculates the year to year change in cost of goods and services for the SF-Oak-SJ area (Feb to Feb, April to April, June to June, Aug to Aug, Oct to Oct, Dec to Dec).  These are then averaged to give the annual average percentage increase for each year (the consumer price index or CPI).  The Labor department does this for all urban consumers (CPI-U) as well as that for urban wage earners and clerical workers (CPI-W).  Comparing the two indices, W seems to be a bit less volatile than U but they are usually within 0.1 and 0.5 of each other; U has been greater than W for the last four years but that was reversed for the three years prior.  When times are bad economically, the CPI goes down; when times are good, it goes up.

For a one year contract, one can easily look up last year’s CPI and there is your COLA, or you might choose to bump it up or down a bit to get a nice round number.  Multiple year contracts require a bit more guesswork.  Some public agencies look at how the CPI is trending, pick a nice round number and negotiate a three-year contract with a 2 or 3 percent COLA for each year.  Others, like the District, tie COLA to the CPI within a range of values.  The floor of this range protects the employee, the ceiling protects the employer.  For the last 20 years, the annual CPI-W has averaged 2.7% and has been as high as 6.1 in 2001, and as low as 0.3 in 2009.  Generally speaking, COLA caps go up and down as the CPI goes, but bear in mind that there is a year lag so when times switch from good to bad sometimes agencies don’t want to provide a COLA based on last year’s high CPI for this year’s low economic conditions.  The last four years the CPI-W has been between 2.4 and 2.6, so a 3% cap in a contract may seem reasonable; however, the first two reported yearly deltas for 2017 (Feb and April) have pushed above 3, making 3.5 or higher appear to be a more reasonable number.

FBA stands for fringe benefit allowance. Similar to COLA, there is an index of likely costs provided by the cost of CalPERS health plans combined with the relatively stable and lower cost of vision and dental plans.  Single-year contracts can provide a set dollar amount based on the previous year’s index.  Multi-year contracts point to an indexed rate that is yet to be determined.  I believe that at one time the District tied their FBA to Kaiser and then CalPERS and Kaiser had a spat and so for a few years Kaiser wasn’t offered by CalPERS so there went that index.  Many agencies utilize cost-sharing where the employer pays the majority of the cost (e.g. 75, 95, 90, 95%) and the employee pays the rest.

At the District, the FBA provided by the contract has been problematic almost since adoption and this has been exacerbated by the rising cost of Health Care and the specter of unfunded liability a la PEPRA, or PEMHCA or whatever other acronym you want to use.  Attempts to make it more equitable or more manageable have largely made it worse over time.  100% coverage for families good; unused balance for singles bad.  Answer: Cafeteria plan with $100 cash back for staff, but $300 for management, WHAT?!?  No cost of living applied to cash back provision means any COLA applied to salary of those getting cash-back is less than that for employees not getting cash-back.  Health care costs rise so FBA is tied to lowest cost plan or lowest cost plan not actually offered where employees actually live.  Answer: Attempt to introduce cost sharing by only covering a portion of increase in cost of lowest cost plan available which is constantly changing.  Wait – isn’t out of pocket cost its own form of cost-sharing?

CalPERS offers a variety of plans with a variety of costs.  The cost of a plan is dictated both by coverage as well as how many are enrolled.  Basically, the cost is determined by relative value combined with supply and demand.  As more people enroll in a plan, the cost of that plan increases.  CalPERS periodically offers new low cost plans to encourage enrollment therein.
 As for the prevailing trend for FBA, most agencies are moving towards some form of cost sharing arrangement.  Some have introduced tiers of coverage to address different levels of coverage (employee, +1, +2 or more).  Most are moving away from cafeteria plans offering a cash-back provision. 

With all that background, let’s turn our gaze to the upcoming changes to how the FBA is provided in the proposed contract extension.  It introduces a formal cost-sharing through a tiered system of coverage (90% for E+2, 95% for E+1, 100% for E only) which is more equitable so this is good.  Cash-back will be eliminated which is bad (if you currently get cash-back).  A 1% increase in salary as a swap for cash-back is good if you are a high earner and not so good if you are a low earner.  The 1% is pensionable and the earlier you get it, the better, not to mention that the prevailing trend is elimination of cash-back.

Tying the FBA to Kaiser is better than tying it to “the lowest cost plan”, because the latter is a constantly moving target.  There seems to always be a “lowest cost plan” introduced each year which keeps that index low.  Kaiser seems to be more stable and more likely to track the overall trend in Health Care costs.  Regardless of Kaiser’s volatility or current cost, it is much better to have this in the contract than our current contract which specifies the cost of the “lowest cost plan” of three years ago plus 2/3 the increase in the cost of the lowest cost plan.

In conclusion, I am not providing an argument for or against this proposed MOU extension.  I do not think that it is the best we could possibly imagine for a Contract.  I do not even think that it is fair.  I do think that it is the best deal that we could get given the constraints of our negotiations.  Please make an informed and well considered decision and vote accordingly.
    

EA Options Upon Rejection of TA

The following commentary is provided by the EA's Attorney. 

1. The EA can return to the bargaining table. Although the EA believes that the current offer will represent the District’s last, best and final offer, the District has not explicitly stated so.
2. If there is no further movement at the table and the parties are at impasse (ie. parties have bargained in good faith and reached a point that further discussions/negotiations would be futile), the EA and District must follow any local or statutory impasse procedures, or may agree on a procedure to address the impasse.
3. The Ad. Code allows the parties to agree to mediation but does not require it. (Ad. Code I, 10.6 (k)) Thus, the EA could suggest mediation in an attempt to break the impasse and proceed if the District agreed.
4. The MMBA allows the EA to request factfinding.  (Govt. Code sec. 3505.4, 3505.5) Once requested by the EA, it is mandatory. Factfinding is a process whereby a panel hears the basis of the dispute and makes a non-binding, advisory recommendation of settlement terms based on statutory criteria. The District is not required to adopt the factfinders’ recommendation.
5. The District cannot implement its last, best and final offer (or terms and conditions reasonably comprehended in pre-impasse proposals) until after any impasse procedures have been completed. 
6. The EA can engage in certain concerted activities, the timing and extent of which must be discussed separately.     

Nomination Committee

Are you interested in taking the next step with your union?  We are currently seeking motivated individuals to serve on the next EA Board after the current Board Members' term expires this September.   We will be having a General Membership Meeting on September 6 to elect the new board.  If you are interested or have questions, please contact the head of the Nomination Committee, Paul Grazzini.  

Sign up for the Softball Game at the Summer Picnic!

 We're using SignUp.com to organize our upcoming Softball Game at the annual summer BBQ!
 
Here's how it works in 3 easy steps:
 
1) Reservations can be made at SignUp.com: http://signup.com/go/gbCyeCV
2) Review the options listed and choose the spot(s) you like.
3) Sign up! It's Easy - you will NOT need to register an account or keep a password on SignUp.com.
 
Note: SignUp.com does not share your email address with anyone. If you prefer not to use your email address, please contact me and I can sign you up manually.

EA Voice June 20107

Message from the President

Dear Members,

After several months of conventional and fast track negotiations, the EA and the Air District reached a tentative agreement on principals for an MOU extension on June 20, 2017.   What this means is that the EA and the Air District have agreed to the concepts and principals of the contract, and will now write up contract language.  A summary of this negotiation process is provided below.

To help members get a better understanding about what is in the new contract, we have summarized the principles of this extension below.  Keep in mind that a tentative agreement was signed on these principles and the negotiating team is working to draft contract language.  These principles are not subject to further negotiation.  We will be voting on a contract based on these principles.  

On a personal note, I would like to give a big thanks to the negotiation team of Robert Cave, Tina McRee, Michael Neward, Michael Wall, Ruby World and Will Saltz.  Our team has worked very hard and I believe has achieved the best contract we could get in these negotiations.  Thank you all for your hard work.  

It is an honor and a pleasure to serve.  
Thank you.
— Chris Coelho, EA President
     eapresident2015@gmail.com

Update on Contract Negotiations

The EA Negotiation team, comprised of board and non-board members, began conventional contract negotiations with District Management in early January.  On March 9th both sides agreed to Ground Rules for Negotiations, and at the start of April both sides introduced proposals for negotiation.  The EA presented proposals related to Salaries (COLA), Standby Pay, Acting Assignments, Special Pay and Allowances, Fringe Benefit Allowance, Transit Subsidy, Family Care Leave, Succession Training, and the Term of the Contract.  Management presented proposals on Deferred Compensation, Method of Filling Vacancies, and Intern & Fellow Program.  The District likely would have introduced proposals for Salaries and/or Fringe had the EA not done so, and this may be true for other items initially presented by the EA.  

In early April, District Management approached the EA leadership about the potential to explore a "fast-track" negotiation process that would limit discussions to the big money items (COLA, FBA, and Term).  This fast-track process would not be subject to the same collective bargaining rules as conventional contract negotiations.  Representatives from both sides met informally through the month of April, reaching a tentative agreement on April 18th.  This tentative agreement was presented to the EA Board for ratification and it was voted down since the majority of the EA Board felt that the tentative agreement was unlikely to be accepted by the General Membership.  

Conventional Negotiations resumed May 11th, and the EA team met with the District Management team on five occasions.  Progress was made on some items, and little progress on others.  With the end of the contract term fast approaching, the EA negotiating team impressed upon the District Management team the need for more serious negotiation.

After some preliminary informal discussion, both sides renewed fast-track negotiations reaching tentative agreement on an enhanced package limited to COLA, FBA, Standby Pay, Transit Subsidy, and Term of Contract.  The EA Board voted to ratify the Tentative Agreement on Principles for an MOU Extension on June 21.  The EA Negotiating team will now work out the Contract Language for these principles in negotiations with District Management.  Once this work is completed, both sides will sign a tentative agreement on the MOU which will be forwarded to the EA board for recommendation to the General Membership to vote for or against adoption of the Amended MOU.  If approved by Membership, it will then go before the District Board of Directors for their consideration and adoption.  
 
 

Summary of Principles of MOU Extension

Contract language is currently being written, but the principles of the contract are listed below.  We will send out the finished language as soon as we can.  

Term
The term of this contract will be for two years (7/1/2017 to 6/30/2019).  
 
COLA
Year one (July 1, 2017): salaries will increase by the CPI of 2.7%
Year two (July 1, 2018): salaries will increase by the CPI (not less than 1% and not more than 3.5%)

Salary Enhancement / Cash Out Swap
On January 1, 2018, all members will receive an additional 1.0% increase in salary.
 
In addition to the 1.0% increase in salary, employees that do not use all of their Fringe Benefit Allowance and previously received cash back will receive on January 1, 2018 a one-time payment (not to exceed $1,200) of annual cashback minus 1.0% of their salary.  Note that there will be no reduction of salary in any form if 1.0% of your salary is greater than $1,200.  Affected employees will receive a one-time cashback between $1 to approximately $750.  Refer to examples below for details.   

Example 1: if you currently make $65,000 and receive full cash back ($1200), you will get the 1% pay increase of $650, plus an additional one-time payment of $550.  
 $1200 - 1% salary ($650) = $550.

Example 2: If you currently make  $144,000 and receive full cash back, you will get a 1% pay increase of $1,440 and no additional one-time payment. 
 $1200-$1440 = $0 cash back (there is no negative)

Example 3: If you currently make  $85,000 and receive $900 cash back, you will get a 1% pay increase of $850 and one-time payment of $50.
$900-$850 = $50.

Fringe Benefit Allowance
On January 1, 2018, there will be an implementation of a Tiered Benefit Model based on Kaiser HMO premiums. 

Eligible Employees (EE) only: will receive 100% of Kaiser HMO singles plus 100% dental and 100% vision for Employee Only Plan.

EE plus one: will receive 95% of Kaiser HMO plus one and 95% dental and vision for Employee plus One Dependent Plan.  

EE plus family: will receive 90% of Kaiser HMO premium for employee plus two or more plus 90% dental and vision for Employee plus Two Dependents or more.  

Effective January 1, 2018, the cash out option will terminate.  

For employees hired before July 1, 2017:

Maximum monthly benefit capped at $1763.70 per month or Tiered Benefit Model Based on Kaiser HMO premiums for class of enrollment as described above, whichever is higher effective January 1, 2018.  

For employees hired on or after July 1, 2017:

Maximum monthly benefit capped at Tiered Benefit Model Based on Kaiser HMO premiums for class of enrollment as described above with no cash out option.

Retirement Healthcare benefits
For employees hired before July 1, : $1763.70 or Tiered Benefit Model Based on Kaiser HMO Premiums for class of enrollment as described above, whichever is higher upon date of retirement. 

For employees hired on or after July 1, 2017:

Tiered Benefit Model Based on Kaiser HMO premiums as described above.    

Standby Pay
Standby pay increased to $5.00 per hour.  

Transit Subsidy 
Transit subsidy increased to the IRS limit ($255).  Future increases will be pegged to IRS increases and not subject to decreases.  

General Membership Meeting

July 6, 2017. 12-1 p.m.
Our next General Membership meeting will be Thursday July 6 from 12-1 p.m. in the Yerba Buena Room.  We will be going over the new contract with members.

For field staff:  we will be webcasting the meeting at the following field offices:

• Richmond Field Office, 845 Marina Bay Parkway, Richmond
• Concord Field Office, 1900 Bates Avenue, Suite G, Concord
• Hayward Field Office, 26220 Industrial Blvd, Hayward

 Lunch will be provided at the Beale St. meeting and at the field office locations.  

In addition,  the EA will host an Open House on Monday July 10 from 12-1 p.m. in the Santa Clara Room if members have additional questions.   

Contract Vote July 11 & 12

Voting for the contract will be done electronically starting July 11 at 8:30 a.m. and ending July 12 at 6:00 p.m.  Members will be voting to accept or decline the offer.

You will be getting an email sent to your Air District email from electionbuddy.com.  If you do not get this email on July 11 on 8:30 a.m., please check your junk or your clutter box.      

EA Board Meetings

The EA Board meets on the second Wednesday of the month in the Bay Area Conference Room 6102. Meeting agendas are posted on the EA and the Public Bulletin boards one week prior to the meeting.  Our next EA Board Meeting will be July 19th at 11:45 am. 

Nomination Committee

Are you interested in taking the next step with your union?  We are currently seeking motivated individuals to serve on the next EA Board after the current Board Members' term expires this September.   We will be having a General Membership Meeting on September 6 to elect the new board.  If you are interested or have questions, please contact the head of the Nomination Committee, Paul Grazzini.  

Baseball Game Sign Up! 

We're using SignUp.com to organize our upcoming Softball Game at the annual summer BBQ!
 
Here's how it works in 3 easy steps:
 
1) Reservations can be made at SignUp.com: http://signup.com/go/gbCyeCV
2) Review the options listed and choose the spot(s) you like.
3) Sign up! It's Easy - you will NOT need to register an account or keep a password on SignUp.com.
 
Note: SignUp.com does not share your email address with anyone. If you prefer not to use your email address, please contact me and I can sign you up manually.
 

General Membership Meeting

Assistant Staff Specialist Proposal and History.

Back in August of 2014, the Air District starting recruiting for an Air Quality Specialist in Strategic Incentives Division.  The EA filed a grievance stating that the job duties are outside the scope of the Air Quality Specialist classification.  This grievance goes to step 3 and on to step 3A in which the EA requested mediation.  During mediation, the Air District proposed the creation of the “Staff Specialist” position.  The EA was amenable and over the next several months, the Air District and the EA negotiated this classification and reached a tentative agreement in September 2015.  On October 27, 2015 at the General membership meeting, the EA membership approved the new Staff Specialist classification and this created the Staff Specialist I/II, Senior Staff Specialist and Supervising Staff Specialist which resolved the grievance.    

During the negotiations of the Staff Specialist classification from 2014-2015, the Air District had mentioned that it wanted to expand the Staff Specialist series.  At the time, the EA wanted to resolve the grievance and did not want to focus on expanding the series at the time. 

In 2015, The EA and the Air District jointly agreed to a classification study of Inspectors, Engineers, and Administrative Analysts.  During the classification study, the contractor Koff & Associates, came up with recommendations to reclassify several Administrative Analysts as the work they were performing was more in-line with the Staff Specialist classification.   In August 2016, the EA agreed to this reclassification and eleven union members were reclassified from Administrative Analyst to Staff Specialist (which was a nice salary increase, and more reflective of the work they do).   

On April 4, 2016 during Meet and Confer, the Air District proposed the Assistant Staff Specialist classification.  Over the next 12 months the EA and the Air District negotiated the terms and conditions of this classification.  The EA’s main concern over this classification was we did not want to see this classification conduct technical work which would be more appropriate Air Quality Technician work.  The Air District has stated that work in this classification will be different from the Air Quality Technicians and the EA is satisfied and accepted the Air District’s latest proposal (March 9, 2017).  This proposal can be found under the 2017 Documents and Activities section of this website.        

On May 8, 2017, the Air District proposes that the Assistant Staff Specialist I/II be placed at the following salary range:

·         Assistant Staff Specialist I, Salary Range 122

·         Assistant Staff Specialist II, Salary Range 126

The EA unanimously agreed to this pay scale.  This would put the Assistant Staff Specialist equivalent to the technician pay scale.

The EA and the Air District are currently embarking on a classification study of Office Assistance and Secretary.  It is conceivable (but not guaranteed), that the Air District may reclassify some of these positions into Assistant Staff Specialists.   In addition, it is also not beyond reason that at some point the Air District may come to the EA with a Principle Staff Specialist classification.  The Principle Staff Specialist has been discussed but in detail, but there currently on the table. 

I encourage all members to attend our special meeting on Monday at 12:30 and vote to support this new classification.  Thank you and as always stay vigilant.  

Chris Coelho, EA President.

The Voice April/May 2017

Message from the President

Dear Members,

You have probably seen me around the office a lot more lately due to contract negotiations.  There have also been rumors regarding a District offer. Therefore, I want to set the record straight with membership.  

While I am not able to go into details, I would like to say that negotiations have been positive and I am still optimistic with the outcome.  Thanks everyone on our team for putting in the all your time.

It is an honor and a pleasure to serve.   Stay vigilant.
Thank you.
— Chris Coelho, EA President
     eapresident2015@gmail.com

Update on Contract Negotiations

The EA Negotiation team, comprised of board and non-board members, began conventional contract negotiations with District Management in early January.  Often the first step of this process is for both sides to develop Ground Rules for Negotiation, which among other things, detail the means of communication, identify the lead negotiators, and limit the scope of the negotiations (which parts of the MOU are up for discussion).  We negotiated over 5 weekly meetings, reaching agreement on March 9th.  These Ground Rules stipulated that all initial proposals be made by April 6th. 

The EA presented proposals on Section 7.01 Salaries (COLA), Sec. 7.08 Standby Duty/Call Back, 7.13 Acting Assignments, Sec. 7.14 Special Pay and Allowances, Sec. 11.07 Premium Requirements (Fringe Benefit Allowance), Sec. 11.13 Transit Subsidy, Sec. 12.10 Family Care Leave, to replace Section 16.04 I bond Program with a new section on Succession Training.  Management then presented proposals on Sec. 11.14 Deferred Compensation, Article XVI Method of Filling Vacancies, and Sec. 16.03 Intern and Fellow Program.  Had the EA chosen not to present a proposal on Salaries or Fringe, the District likely would have, and this may be true for other items initially presented by the EA.  

In early April, District Management approached the EA leadership about the potential to explore a "fast-track" negotiation process that would limit discussions to the big money items (COLA, FBA, and Term).  This fast-track process would not be subject to the same collective bargaining rules as conventional contract negotiations.  Representatives from both sides (not the full negotiating teams), met informally through the month of April to informally discuss a potential deal to extend the MOU, arriving at a tentative agreement on April 18th.  This tentative agreement was presented to the EA board over the course of two special meetings on April 26th and May 3rd.  A majority of the EA Board felt that the tentative agreement was unlikely to be accepted by the General Membership and so voted against ratification on May 3rd.   EA leadership met once more with District Management to relay this information, and to suggest reasons why the EA Board rejected the offer.

Conventional Negotiations are set to resume on May 11th.  District Management may or may not wish to renew fast-track negotiations at any time between now and the conclusion of conventional negotiations.  EA leadership is willing to discuss any enhanced offer that they wish to present.  

EA Board Meetings

The EA Board meets on the second Wednesday of the month in the Bay Area Conference Room 6102. Meeting agendas are posted on the EA and the Public Bulletin boards one week prior to the meeting.  Our next EA Board Meeting will be May 10th at 11:45 am. 

Nomination Committee

re you interested in taking the next step with your union?  We are currently seeking motivated individuals to serve on the next EA Board after the current Board Members' term expires this September.  If you are interested or have questions, please contact the head of the Nomination Committee, Paul Grazzini.  

Happy Hour, Take 2

On Thursday April 20th, the EA hosted our first happy hour at the Hi Dive.  Several members from multiple divisions attended.  Several new faces showed up and we look forward to having another event like this in the future.   
 

2017 Baseball Games

Thanks everyone who attended the A's vs. Giants game this year.  Those that went to game one also received a ticket to game two.  Game two will be June 2 at 7:05 pm against the Washington Nationals.  

Labor History, May Day.  May 1, 1886

The connection between May Day and labor rights began in the United States. During the 19th century, thousands of men, women and children were dying every year from poor working conditions and long hours. In an attempt to end these inhumane conditions, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions (which would later become the American Federation of Labor) held a convention in Chicago in 1884. The FOTLU proclaimed “eight hours shall constitute a legal day’s labor from and after May 1, 1886.”

The following year the Knights of Labor (then America’s largest labor organization), backed the proclamation as both groups encouraged workers to strike and demonstrate. On May 1, 1886, more than 300,000 workers (40,000 in Chicago alone) from 13,000 business walked out of their jobs across the country. In the following days, more workers joined and the number of strikers grew to almost 100,000.

Overall, the protests were peaceful, but that all changed on May 3 where Chicago police and workers clashed at the McCormick Reaper Works. The next day a rally was planned at Haymarket Square to protest the killing and wounding of several workers by the police. The speaker, August Spies, was winding down when a group of officers arrived to disperse the crowd. As the police advanced, an individual who was never identified threw a bomb into their ranks. Chaos ensued. At least seven police officers and eight civilians died as a result of the violence that day, and an untold number of others were injured.

The Haymarket Riot set off a national wave of repression. In August 1886, eight men labeled as anarchists were convicted in a sensational and controversial trial despite there being no solid evidence linking the defendants to the bombing. The jury was considered to be biased, with ties to big business. Seven of the convicted men received a death sentence, and the eighth was sentenced to 15 years in prison. In the end, four of the men were hanged, one committed suicide and the remaining three were pardoned six years later.

A few years after the Haymarket Riots and subsequent trials shocked the world, a newly formed coalition of socialist and labor parties in Europe called for a demonstration to honor the “Haymarket Martyrs.” In 1890, over 300,000 people protested at a May Day rally in London. The history of May 1 was embraced by many governments worldwide—not just those with strong socialist or communist influences.

Today, May Day is an official holiday in 66 countries and unofficially celebrated in many more, but ironically it is rarely recognized in the country where it began—the United States of America. After the 1894 Pullman Strike, President Grover Cleveland officially moved the U.S. celebration of Labor Day to the first Monday in September, intentionally severing ties with the international worker’s celebration for fear that it would built support for communism and other radical causes. Dwight D. Eisenhower tried to reinvent May Day in 1958, further distancing the memories of the Haymarket Riot, by declaring May 1 to be “Law Day”—celebrating the place of law in the creation of the United States.

The Rumor Mill

Rumor: "The EA rejected a fantastic offer by the District that had a 5% COLA the first year"
Truth: No we did not.  That is fake news and just a rumor.   

Better know your MOU

ARTICLE II RECOGNITION, COVERAGE AND EXCLUSIVE
REPRESENTATION

SECTION 2.01 RECOGNITION
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (District) has recognized the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Employees’ Association, Inc. as the representative of the employees in the Technical/General representation unit and the Professional Employees’ representation unit for all matters of employer-employee relations. (Hereinafter the term Association will apply to either or both units as applicable and appropriate.)

SECTION 2.02 COVERAGE OF EMPLOYEES
1. The classifications within each unit are listed in the Appendix A. For the purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding, the classification system which is adopted by the Board of Directors and maintained by the Human Resources Section is the source for determination of unit representation.
2. The District will notify the Association’s Recording Secretary within ten (10) days when a new employee is hired into regular employment in a bargaining unit position.

SECTION 2.03 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATION BY THE ASSOCIATION
The District agrees that during the term this Memorandum of Understanding is in effect, the Association shall be the exclusive bargaining agent of those employees covered by this Memorandum.

SECTION 2.04 AGENCY SHOP / MAINTENANCE OF MEMBERSHIP
Each employee covered by this Agreement except supervisory employees shall, as a condition of continued employment, within thirty (30) days of first employment at the District, or for a supervisor who does not already pay association dues, effective July 1, 2010, either 1) become and remain a member in good standing of the Association, or 2) commence and continue to make payment(s) of an amount equivalent to the Association’s periodic dues to the  association as a service fee for Association representation, except such amount shall not exceed that amount as outlined by or required by law having to do with the subject of non-member fees paid to unions for representation.

........

SECTION 2.06 DUES/FEES DEDUCTIONS
The parties agree that the District will provide payroll  deductions to the Association on the following terms:
1. Authorization:
The District shall deduct dues and initiation fees (or agency fees or charitable contributions in lieu of Association dues and initiation fees) from the salaries of unit members every pay day and remit the total deductions to the Association member designated in writing as the person authorized to receive such funds, and at the address specified by the Association.  Such remittance will contain an itemized statement and will be made to the Association no later than seven (7) days following the payday. No deductions shall be made except in accordance with a deduction authorization form individually and voluntarily executed by the employee for whom the deduction is made.
2. Amount of Dues:
The Association shall certify to the District in writing the current rate of membership dues and agency fees. The District shall put into effect any new, changed, or discontinued deduction no later than the beginning of the second pay period after receipt of written notice from the Association.

March 2017 EA Voice

Message from the President

Dear Members,

As you are aware, the classification study for the Inspectors, Engineers, and Administrative Analysts tentative agreement was rejected by membership (69% no and 31% yes).  The current classifications will remain in effect and we hope to work with the District to revise the rejected class specs.  Currently we are conducting class study for EA members in the following classes:

• Air Quality Specialist
• Office Assistant
• Secretary
• Administrative Secretary
• Accounting Assistant 

Mark your calendar as our summer picnic will be at the Miller/Knox Regional Park in Richmond this year on Saturday, August 19.  Stay tuned for more information.  

A special note to inspection staff.  Deepti Jain will be temporarily filling in as inspection steward for Raymond Salalila while he is on leave.  Inspectors in the south zone should contact Deepti in regards to EA issues and concerns until Raymond returns.  Thank you Deepti.  

Contract negotiations are in full speed and our team is working hard on proposals.  I am optimistic about these negotiations and I would again like to thank everyone on our team putting in long hours on research.  This has been a team effort.  Thank you.

It is an honor and a pleasure to serve.   Stay vigilant.
Thank you.
— Chris Coelho, EA President
     eapresident2015@gmail.com

EA Board Meetings

The EA Board meets on the second Wednesday of the month in the Bay Area Conference Room 6102. Meeting agendas are posted on the EA and the Public Bulletin boards one week prior to the meeting.  Our next EA Board Meeting will be April 12th at 11:45 am. 

Nomination Committee

Are you interested in taking the next step with your union?  We are currently seeking motivated individuals to serve on the next EA Board after the current Board Members' term expires this September.  If you are interested or have questions, please contact the head of the Nomination Committee, Paul Grazzini.  

Happy Hour, Take 2

Where: Hidive 28 Pier, San Francisco, CA 94105
When: Thursday, April 20th from 5pm-7pm

Dear EA Members,
Our Happy Hour has been rescheduled for 4/20 at Hidive! The happy hour will be from 5pm-7pm in the restaurant’s outdoor patio. Light appetizers will be provided by the EA and drinks will be available for purchase at your own expense. This is a great opportunity for Air District employees to meet and socialize. Please RSVP here so we can have a head count.
 
All District Employees are invited to join us for the Happy Hour.
 

2017 Baseball Games

All tickets to this years  A's vs. Giants exhibition game have sold out!  We look forward to seeing you on April 1 for our tailgate BBQ in parking lot B near the power line towers.  BBQ will be 10 am - 11:30 am and the game starts at 12:05 pm. 

Disability Discrimination/EA Function

The Law
The Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) is a federal law prohibiting employers from discriminating against “qualified” individuals with physical or mental disabilities in any aspect of the employment relationship, including hiring, discipline, advancement and any other term, condition, or privilege of employment. The ADA defines “disability” in three ways: 1. A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; 2. A record of such impairment; or 3. Being regarded as having such an impairment. Some further definition is necessary. “Major life activities” is meant to include things such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating,  working, and also includes the operation of major bodily functions. The “substantially limits” language requires that individuals establish that they cannot perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, as opposed to a particular job, and also demonstrate that the condition is not transitory or temporary.

To come within the ADA’s protection, an individual must also establish that he or she is “qualified.” That means showing that the individual satisfies the prerequisites of the position held or desired and then showing that he or she, with or without a reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position held or desired.

If an individual has a “disability” which is known to the employer, the employer should initiate an interactive process to determine whether a “reasonable accommodation” will allow the disabled employee to perform the essential functions of the job. Reasonable accommodations may include making existing facilities readily accessible, job restructuring, modifying work schedules, reassignment to vacant positions, acquisition or modification of equipment, training, and similar accommodations. The employer is not required to agree to any accommodation that causes an “undue hardship,” that is, one which would require significant hardship or expense. In general, the interactive process contemplates the identification of barriers to equal opportunity caused by the disability, the identification of possible accommodations, the assessment of the reasonableness of each accommodation in terms of effectiveness and equal opportunity, and the implementation of the accommodation which is most appropriate for the employer and employee which does not impose an undue hardship on the employer.   

The EA’s Role

Section 3.01 of the 2014-2017 MOU articulates the District’s policy to provide equal employment opportunities to disabled employees. Thus, it is appropriate for the EA to assist disabled or potentially disabled employees in insuring that the above rights are respected by the District. This function may include assisting employees determine whether they are a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of the statute, assisting the employee in informing the District of the employee’s status, and assisting the employee in the interactive process. Obviously, disputes between the employee and the District on these issues can arise. For example, there may be disputes about whether the employee is disabled, whether major life activities are affected, whether a condition is permanent or temporary, whether accommodation is possible, and even if possible, whether the accommodation is reasonable or creates an undue hardship to the District. If such disputes arise and are not resolved, the MOU is clear that the grievance procedure is not an option. Rather, at that point, the employee should be advised of his or her right to file a claim with the federal EEOC or state DFEH.  The employee is not required to exhaust the grievance procedure before filing such a claim.

[*Disclaimer: This article is intended as informational only. It is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice, recommendations, mediation or counseling under any circumstance nor does it create an attorney-client relationship.]    

Labor History.  April 28, 1971

On April 28, 1971, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration opened its doors. The creation of OSHA proved to be one the greatest victory in American history for workplace health. Unfortunately, OSHA could never live up to its potential to revolutionize the workplace due to the organized resistance of corporations, the conservative movement that would transform American politics beginning in the late 1970s, and regulatory capture that limited the agency’s effectiveness. That said, OSHA has done a tremendous amount to improve workers’ lives.

OSHA’s ability to protect workers has severe limitations due to underfunding. In 1980, OSHA employed 2950 people. In 2006, it employed only 2092 people, despite the near doubling of the size of the workforce. The explosion at the West Fertilizer plant in Texas on April 17 that killed at least 14 people demonstrated the agency’s very real limitations. There are so few OSHA inspectors that it would take 129 years to inspect every workplace in the country at current staffing levels. Punishment for OSHA violations are often weak and employers have minimum fear that of any real punishment.

The Rumor Mill

The "Doctor's Note"

EA members are under the impression that they must provide a note from their doctor when they call in sick and are asked to provide a doctor's note by their supervisor or management. Not so.

Occasionally, but not very often, a supervisor or a manager will ask a bargaining unit member to provide a doctors note when that employee has been off on sick leave for a couple of days or more. There is no requirement for an employee to provide a doctors note regarding the use of sick leave time. The MOU does not include such a requirement. Should your supervisor or your manager tell you to provide a doctor's note, ostensibly to verify that you were actually ill when you used sick leave, you should immediately contact your union steward to assist you because such a request does not comply with the MOU. If you do not know who your steward is, you can verify that person's identity by looking on the EA's website: www.ea-voice.org.

It should be noted that there are other types of situations in which the Air District's request for a bargaining unit employee to provide a doctor's note is in compliance with the MOU. For instance, if an employee has a disability and is making an ADA request for a reasonable accommodation, the Air District can properly ask that employee to provide medical certification of the disability. Another situation would include an employee request to use Benevolent Leave which requires " medical verification" under the MOU.  Keep in mind that even when medical certification is appropriately requested by the Air District, state and federal laws may limit the type of information that must be disclosed.
 

Better know your MOU

SECTION 3.02  EMPLOYEE RIGHTS  
1. The rights of employees of the District include, but are not limited to, the right to, subject to the provisions of this agreement and consistent with applicable laws and regulations:

 A. A. Form, join and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matter of employer employee relations.  

B. Refuse to join or participate in the activities of any employee organizations.  
 
2. The scope of representation by the Association shall include all matters relating to employment conditions and employer-employee relations, including, but not limited to, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment except, however, that the scope of representation shall not include consideration of the merits, necessity, or organization of any service or activity provided by law or executive order.  This subsection parallels Section 3504 of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act and will automatically be amended to reflect any amendment to or replacement of said statuary section on the effective date of any such change.  
 
3. The District and the Association shall not interfere with, intimidate, restrain, coerce, retaliate, or discriminate against employees because of their exercise of these rights. 
 
4. Any matter within the scope of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act or within the scope of the Memorandum of Understanding that the District acts upon without meeting and conferring shall be null and void.  
 
5. The District shall deduct dues and/or agency fees from the paychecks of all members of the Association and from non-members who are employed by the District in a classification represented by the Association.  
 
6. The Association agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the District against any claims, causes of action or lawsuits arising out of the deductions or transmittal of such funds to the Association, except the intentional failure of the District to transmit moneys deducted from employees to the Association pursuant to this Article.  
 

Classification study voting resultes

Members have voted on the classification study of Administrative Analyst,  Inspectors and Engineers.   This study was rejected.  

No 69%  Yes 31%

EA Voice February 2017

Newsletter from the EA Board 

Message from the President
Dear Members,

This is a busy time for the EA, working on overdrive to protect our members and to make sure the Air District follows the MOU.  Issues were raised regarding the FLSA (Federal Labor Standards Act) exemption designation for the District Engineers in the Koff Classification study.  We are providing you with information to ensure that you make an educated choice when voting on the Board (EA and BAAQMD Board of Directors) approved revised job specifications on March 6th.   We will be sending out an email on March 6th for the vote and we will be ending the vote on March 7th at 6 pm.
 
Clarification about the EA Voice.  This newsletter is for you.  It is our way to get out information to members.  It is also a platform for members to communicate with each other.  If you have an article, opinion, alternative view, or suggestion that you would like to see published in the EA Voice, please contact us at voice@employeesassociation.org.  We try hard to get each issue out by the third or fourth week of the month.  Disclaimer: we will not publish anything that is a personal attack, inappropriate or vindictive.   

I am going to start a new section called “The Rumor Mill”.  Rumors have a way of spreading around this place and while they can be based off some truth, usually when we investigate, we usually find there has been some type of miscommunication or misunderstanding.  See “Rumor Mill” below.   

Finally, we will be having our next General Membership meeting March 6th.   We will be conducting an online Survey Monkey vote starting after the meeting on March 6th and closing March 7th at 6pm.  Please contact me if you do not get this Survey Monkey email (eapresident2015@gmail.com).  

I'd like to thank our members who have been vigilant and letting us know when an issue arises.  It is our duty to serve and a privilege to represent you.  

Thank you.
— Chris Coelho, EA President
     eapresident2015@gmail.com

General Membership Meeting March 6th
Our next EA general membership meeting will take place Monday March 6th at noon in the Yerba Buena and Ohlone rooms.  We will update members on current board activities.  Lunch will be provided and the meeting will be simulcast for field staff and members who cannot attend. 

Classification Study Vote March 6th & 7th
We will be conducting an online vote on the Koff and Associates classification study of Engineers, Inspectors and Administrative Analyst Series beginning after the General Membership Meeting.  This is a change to the MOU and will require a general membership vote to approve.  The classification series can be found on our website here.  The vote will take place online March 6th and 7th.  Please look for an email from Survey Monkey on March 6th by 4 pm.  

Classification Study Timeline
In early 2015, the Air District and the EA mutually agreed to begin a classification study according to the provisions stated in the MOU.  The EA proposed the Administrative Analyst, Inspector and Engineering classes.  The District accepted these three classes and the two parties began looking for a contractor to conduct the study. 

Both parties agreed to use the contractor Koff & Associates. 

Starting on March 3, 2015, the EA Meet and Confer team worked with the Air District on classification studies with Koff & Associates.   During this time, several bargaining unit members in the Administrative Analyst, Inspector and Engineering classes filled out questionnaires about their job duties.  Koff & Associates also conducted interviews with union members in these classes.  

Starting about February 2016, the EA solicited comments from the affected staff on the draft job specifications proposed by Koff & Associates.  The EA compiled the comments and negotiated the details of these classification changes with the Air District until December 2016.

On December 2, 2016, the EA and that Air District reached a tentative agreement on the class study.

About January 17, 2017, a concern was brought to the EA Board that the FLSA designation for the Engineer I/II was changed to exempt status. 

On January 18, 2017, the Air District Board of Directors voted to approve the changes in the classification studies. 

The EA received many questions and comments from members about the classification study and we have summarized those questions and answers in as item 1  here.  Some members had specific questions for our Attorney and the classification study contractor.  These are addressed below.

The EA’s attorney, with over 30 years of labor law experience, has written opinion about this issue as item 2 here.   

It is worth highlighting two items in our attorney's opinion:

1. The FLSA-exempt designation is essentially inconsequential.  He further states:

“The fact that an employee is designated as ‘exempt’ or ‘non-exempt’ does not prohibit the employee from enforcing their FLSA rights. Thus, if an engineer believes that the District owes him/her overtime under the FLSA, that employee can proceed directly to Court. The Court would not be bound by the District's designation.”

1. The MOU provides for Overtime for all bargaining unit members:

"All classifications covered by the MOU are entitled to overtime pursuant to Section 9.04. Under that section, authorized overtime must be paid whenever an employee exceeds his/her normal workday or when he/she works in excess of 40 hours per week. This is a contractual entitlement and is not affected by the FLSA. When the employee works authorized overtime, he/she is entitled to ‘one and one half times base hourly rate.’ Your engineers are entitled to that overtime premium regardless of any FLSA designation. The obligation is enforceable through the MOU's grievance procedure"

The Air District has also written a statement and it is provided as item 3 here

On January 23, 2017, the EA held a special membership meeting to discuss the FLSA  designation for the Engineering class.   

Follow up questions from the special membership meeting were sent to Koff and Associates.  
Questions from EA:
"1) When determining if a position is exempt or non-exempt, does Koff use the information contained in the spec as the sole basis for that determination?
Do you look at collective bargaining agreements (CBA)? If so, do you take them into account? It doesn't seem that was the case with the study for the Engineering class series as well as the Admin Analyst class series. The reason is the CBA between the union and the Air District clearly states that all bargaining unit members are eligible to earn overtime. If an employee can earn overtime why would he/she be designated as FLSA Exempt?  
 
2) Specifically for the salary test, it doesn't make sense to the engineers that they would be designated as FLSA exempt if they are hourly employees. Their job specs might state a yearly salary, however, Engineers are paid hourly. If they don't work a fully 80 hour pay period, they have to account for missed time via sick leave or other types of leave that employees accrue over the course of the year. The union would like an in-depth explanation, step-by-step, as to how the FLSA duties test and salary test were applied to the employees? "

Response from Koff.
"Exemption status is determined by body of work performed and can vary by position.  We would not look at CBAs but rather at the work they described in their questionnaires.  The law is put in place to protect workers from exploitation and wants to ensure that non-exempt workers would receive OT for excess hours worked.  It is perfectly legal for an employer to choose to pay OT to an exempt worker even though they don’t have to by law but it is not OK for them not to pay OT to a non-exempt worker. 
 
I would imagine that your employees are salaried but for OT purposes the salary has to be converted to an hourly equivalent and yes, there are laws that dictate how missed time needs to be accounted for.  I did provide the explanation on the different types of exemptions and the Engineers would fall under the professional exemption.  I believe everyone who participated emphasized the advanced body of knowledge that they possessed and the regular use of judgment and discretion in the performance of their work."

The full email exchange can be found as item 4 here. 

On February 23, 2017, The EA and the Air District met with Katie Kaneko of Koff & Associates.  The EA directly asked how her firm determined that Monterey Bay Air Quality Engineer’s were designated FLSA-nonexempt and our AQE’s were designated FLSA-exempt, noting that when you compare the classification specs for the respective agencies, there is no obvious distinction whereby ours would have more independent judgment than those of Monterey Bay.
 
She responded that while she was not personally involved with the Monterey Bay class study, it is her firm’s normal practice to make a recommendation regarding FLSA status; however, the final version of the Spec is ultimately up to the client.  So it may be that the FLSA determination was made by Monterey Bay after her firm made its recommendation.  

Starting January 19, 2017 to the present, The EA has started contract negotiations with Air District Management.  As part of the negotiation, ground rules have been discussed and both parties will agree to limit the negotiations to certain sections of the MOU.  Neither party has brought forth the desire to discuss Section 9, which pertains to overtime, so it is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. 

The following was submitted by a group of bargaining unit engineers (a list of signatories is attached) for distribution to EA membership.  

 DO YOU WANT TO WORK OVERTIME WITHOUT PAY?
Dear EA Members:
On March 6th we urge you to REJECT the new job classification studies. The engineer classification study designates engineers as FLSA EXEMPT, which takes away an employee’s right to receive overtime pay.
AS A NON-ENGINEER WHY SHOULD YOU CARE?

1. You Could Be Next! A classification study for your job may result in a similar conclusion. One of the criteria used to designate an employee FLSA Exempt is whether he/she is a learned professional. With a science, engineering, or planning background, many other classes of District employees qualify as exempt such as planners, meteorologists, and chemists. Let’s show management that we will not accept this designation for engineers or any other group of employees.
2. Divide and Conquer. Labeling one group of union members as exempt and others as non-exempt will create a division within the union. By creating two factions, management will be able to pit one side against the other in future negotiations. We should not give management this upper hand.
3. Wasteful Spending of Your Dues. In the event that the overtime protections are removed from the MOU, and an employee is denied overtime pay, the EA would take the issue to court. With the exempt designation approved by the Air District and the EA, we would have no legal standing in the courts. It would be a losing battle. And who will end up paying for each of these court battles? You! Court fees can be a huge expenditure so let’s avoid wasteful spending and mental agony by voting to reject the classification studies and thereby, retaining the status quo.

If these negative effects aren’t enough to convince you to reject the job classification studies, perhaps the following will change your mind.

• The consultant, Koff & Associates, which conducted the job classification study, incorrectly assumed that engineers exercise discretion. However, the work done by engineers is required by law to conform to strict rules and procedures (BACT workbook, permit handbook, Health & Safety Code, etc.).
• Koff & Associates conducted the same study at Monterey Bay Air Resources District and designated their engineers as non-exempt. Since their engineers have the same duties and responsibilities as the engineers here, why would the designation be different? See Attachment Item 5.
• The EA Board and Management argue that overtime is protected by the current MOU. But what happens when the MOU is up for renewal this coming June or in the future? There is always something to trade away like we did with our COLA, the District’s contribution to CALPERS, transit benefits, etc.
• Both the EA Board and Management have stated that this designation carries no significance. If it is truly insignificant, why change the designation? We should retain the status quo.
• The EA Board is concerned that the rejection of the job classification will potentially damage the relationship with Management. We believe that the EA Board should be more concerned with properly representing its members and safeguarding their best interests.

So with this information, please ask yourself: what do you want the union to stand for? It is up to you, the individual member, to uphold the values and virtues of the union. The purpose of the union is to be able to count on the support of your fellow members. Please choose to bolster the ideals of a union and strengthen our collective bargaining powers by voting to reject the job classification studies.
 
Thank you for your careful consideration. as signed

EA Board Meetings
The EA Board meets on the second Wednesday of the month in the Bay Area Conference Room 6102. Meeting agendas are posted on the EA and the Public Bulletin boards one week prior to the meeting.  Our next EA Board Meeting will be March 8th  at 11:45 am. 

The Rumor Mill
 The  “Junior Inspector”.  Let's put this one to rest, there is no such thing as a Junior Inspector.  However, there is a section 7.13 (Acting Assignments) in the MOU that does allow the Air District to back-fill vacant positions with other staff while an ongoing recruitment is in place for that vacancy.  That is the current situation in Enforcement.  Some Air Quality Technicians are on acting assignments while we currently have an active inspector recruitment.  This type of situation is okay; however, we must be vigilant.  Acting assignments and limited term assignments seem to have a way of being misused.  If you hear about something, or see something you are not quite sure about, then let us know so we can investigate.  It takes all of us working together to defend the contract. 
 

Frequently Asked Questions added

We have added a frequently asked questions section on the Koff classification study.  It is located under the documents section, "Classification Study 2015" 

Time change for Tuesday's Special Meeting

Special Membership Meeting for Professional Class January 31st
In response to the current FLSA issue, we will be hosting an informational special membership meeting on January 31st in the Yerba Buena from 1:00 to 2 pm.  Light refreshments will be provided.  

EA Voice January 2017

Message from the President Happy New Year everyone! 2017 is here and there is no shortage of work that needs to be done.  Contract negotiations have started on a positive note and we are optimistic that we will finish before the current contract expires.   There have been some technical issues with sending emails to the Air District servers, so we are sending this to personal emails in order to prevent these messages from arriving in your junk mail.     An issue was recently brought to our attention that deserves immediate response.  The issue is in regards to the class study that was conducted on the Administrative Analysts, Inspectors, and Engineers.  The membership will need to take a vote to accept the classification study on Administrative Analysts, Inspectors and Engineering classes.  The vote will be to either accept or not-accept the proposed revisions to the class specifications.  These revisions are based on recommendations from the Study performed by Koff and Associates and jointly commissioned by the EA and Air District.  Generally speaking, this should have been done prior to going to the Air District Board of Directors. It was noticed that on the Engineering class specifications, that the Fair Labor and Standards Act (FLSA) designation was changed from non-except to except.  FLSA was put into place in regards to overtime and minimum wages.  Being exempt from  FLSA potentially means being denied overtime pay when working over 40 hours per week.  However, our MOU supersedes exemption (see section 9.04 below) and this was confirmed with consultation with our attorney.  It is common practice that professional classes are exempt from FLSA requirement.  The Air District has stated overtime has never been an issue and if members have been denied overtime based on except designation, then contact your steward or the EA Grievance Committee as this is a violation of the MOU.  To find out more about FLSA,  check out the following fact link here.  This designation does not impact salary and/or benefits as described in the MOU A special membership meeting has been scheduled on January 31st to discuss and clarity the new FLSA exception designation for the Air District Engineers and to explain the reason for the designation and the implication.   This will be a 30-minute meeting from 12:30 to 1pm in the Yerba Buena room in the 1st floor.    We will be conducting an online Survey Monkey vote starting January 31st and closing February 6th.  Please contact me if you do not get this email (eapresident2015@gmail.com).   Finally, we will be having our next General Membership meeting March 6th.   I'd like to thank our members who have been vigilant and letting us know when an issue arises.  It is our duty to serve and a privilege to represent you.  Thank you. — Chris Coelho, EA President      eapresident2015@gmail.com

Special Membership Meeting for Professional ClassJanuary 31st In response to the current FLSA issue, we will be hosting an informational special membership meeting on January 31st in the Yerba Buena from 12:30 to 1pm.  Light refreshments will be provided.  We will be simulcasting this meeting for those not able to attend.     Classification Study Vote January 31st-February 6th We will be conducting an online vote on the Koff and Associates classification study of Engineers, Inspectors and Administrative Analyst Series.  This is a change to the MOU and will require a general membership vote to approve.  The classification series can be found on our website here.  The vote will take place online from January 31st to February 6th.  Please look for an email from Survey Monkey on January 31st.  The EA Board unanimously recommends supporting these classification updates.       General Membership Meeting March 6th Our next EA general membership meeting will take place Monday March 6th at noon in the Yerba Buena and Ohlone rooms.  We will update members on current board activities.  Lunch will be provided and the meeting will be simulcast for field staff and members who cannot attend.  Social Committee 2017 On January 19th, the Social Committee had their first planning meeting for 2017.  Progress was made and most of the events for the year have already been planned for the year.  We are working on this years baseball game, summer picnic and children's party.  We are also trying out on some new ideas.  We will be hosting a happy hour in February and looking into putting together a recreation league team.  We look forward to another year of activities and bringing members and their families together.     Happy Hour The EA is hosting a Happy Hour on Thursday, February 16th from 5pm-7pm at Hidive. Light appetizers will be provided by the EA and drinks will be available for purchase at your own expense. This is a great opportunity for Air District employees to meet and collaborate. Please RSVP here so we can have a head count.   Where: Hidive 28 Pier, San Francisco, CA 94105 When: Thursday, February 16th from 5pm-7pm   2017 Baseball Games This year the EA will be going to the A's vs. Giants exhibition game.  There are 100 tickets available.  In addition, if you sign up for the A's game on Saturday April 1st, 2017, you will receive a ticket to the second game on Friday June 2nd, 2017.     EA Recreational League Calling all Air District employees! Interested in joining a co-ed recreational league that delivers the best mix of sports, socializing, AND donates to charities? How does playing dodge-ball, indoor soccer, or volleyball sound? No need to be a pro, all are encouraged to play! For those interested in joining a sports league and be part of BAAQMD’s team, please reply to aflores@baaqmd.gov with your sports league preference. See you on the field!   Labor Law Conference On January 5th, three members of the EA Board attended the Labor Law and Arbitration conference in Oakland.  This conference featured four labor law arbitrators discussing current labor issues from 2016 and giving their insights and how they would have ruled on the case.   In addition, several topics were discussed including: rules of evidence, off-duty misconduct, computer misuse, discipline and discharge, last chance agreements, contract law , past practice and family and medical leave act.   EA Board Meetings The EA Board meets on the second Wednesday of the month in the Bay Area Conference Room 6102. Meeting agendas are posted on the EA and the Public Bulletin boards one week prior to the meeting.  Our next EA Board Meeting will be February 8th  at 11:45 am.  Labor History At 8 p.m. on December 30, 1936, in one of the first sit-down strikes in the United States, autoworkers occupy the General Motors Fisher Body Plant Number One in Flint, Michigan. The autoworkers were striking to win recognition of the United Auto Workers (UAW) as the only bargaining agent for GM’s workers; they also wanted to make the company stop sending work to non-union plants and to establish a fair minimum wage scale, a grievance system and a set of procedures that would help protect assembly-line workers from injury. In all, the strike lasted 44 days. The strike actually began at smaller plants.  The Flint plant was the biggest coup, however: it contained one of just two sets of body dies that GM used to stamp out almost every one of its 1937 cars. By seizing control of the Flint plant, autoworkers could shut down the company almost entirely. So, on the evening of December 30, the Flint Plant’s night shift simply stopped working. They locked themselves in and sat down. “She’s ours!” one worker shouted. GM argued that the strikers were trespassing and got a court order demanding their evacuation; still, the union men stayed put. GM turned off the heat in the buildings, but the strikers wrapped themselves in coats and blankets and hunkered down. On January 11, police tried to cut off the strikers’ food supply; in the resulting riot, known as the “Battle of the Running Bulls,” 16 workers and 11 policemen were injured and the UAW took over the adjacent Fisher Two plant. On February 1, the UAW won control of the enormous Chevrolet No. 4 engine factory. GM’s output went from a robust 50,000 cars in December to just 125 in February. Despite GM’s enormous political clout, Michigan Governor Frank Murphy refused to use force to break the strike. Though the sit-ins were illegal, he believed, he also believed that authorizing the National Guard to break the strike would be an enormous mistake. “If I send those soldiers right in on the men,” he said, “there’d be no telling how many would be killed.” As a result, he declared, “The state authorities will not take sides. They are here only to protect the public peace.” Meanwhile, President Roosevelt urged GM to recognize the union so that the plants could reopen. In mid-February, the automaker signed an agreement with the UAW. Among other things, the workers were given a 5 percent raise and permission to speak in the lunchroom. Better know your MOU SECTION 9.04 OVERTIME The District will avoid the necessity for overtime where possible. The District is under no obligation to assure anyone of the availability of overtime work, nor is the District obligated to treat any particular kind of assignment as overtime. Therefore, the District may adjust work schedules where possible to cover work assignments as straight time work assignments. The District recognizes that not all work matters can be scheduled during a work shift, and consequently, legitimate overtime assignments will be compensated accordingly. A notice to an employee to work overtime is a notice in advance if the assignment is given more than 24 hours prior to the beginning of the work to be performed. Such assignments will be considered “scheduled” overtime. An assignment given less than 24 hours in advance will be considered an “unscheduled” assignment for call-back purposes. A call-back is the unscheduled, emergency, and authorized call-back to return to work after a regular shift has been completed. The District will make every reasonable effort to notify employees of changes in work schedules 14 days in advance of the work to be performed. Though work schedules for most employees are within the normal work day and normal workweek, groupings of employees may occasionally or regularly have work schedules at different times. The District reserves the right to change work schedules to meet operational needs during straight time shifts. Except as otherwise provided in Section 9.01, travel time pay is only authorized for call-back assignments. Travel time and call-back time will be compensated at the applicable rate of pay. The time employees spend traveling to a work assignment, except for qualifying callback assignments, is not to be paid regardless of whether the employee is traveling to a scheduled overtime or straight time assignment. 1. AUTHORIZATION. Overtime is the necessary, assigned authorized time worked in excess of eight (8), nine (9), or ten (10) hours per day (depending on an individual's normal work schedule) or forty (40) hours per week. With regard to flex time or compressed work weeks, it is recognized that the standard work week may not be 40 hours. Any hours worked beyond whatever is necessary to fulfill the designated flex/compressed work week plan for a represented employee are designated as excess hours. These excess hours are to be paid as overtime or compensatory time at the rate of one and one-half times base hourly rate. For the purposes of this section, paid leave time shall be included in computing the forty hours per week when determining eligibility for overtime; provided, however, that an employee on a flex time or compressed schedule may, with supervisor's approval, modify a normal schedule in order to meet operational necessities, which modified schedule will then constitute a normal work time. ...... 6. All represented employees who are authorized and work overtime shall be compensated at the rate of one and one-half times their base hourly rate of pay for all time worked over their normally scheduled work day. Represented employees may elect compensatory time at the rate of one and one-half (1½) times the overtime worked in lieu of overtime pay but may not accumulate more than 240 hours of compensatory time. After 240 hours of compensatory time has been accumulated, overtime pay will be the compensation for overtime work. The maximum accumulation of compensation time is 120 hours as of the end of the calendar year. At the end of the calendar year, the District will pay the employee all compensation time in excess of 120 hours at the current hourly rate. An employee may cash out up to the full amount (240 hours) at the end of the calendar year.

EA Voice December 2016

Message from the President
 

Dear Members,

Happy Holidays everyone!  This is one of my favorite times of the year and as the temperatures drop and families gather together for the season.  In addition to family gatherings, this is also time of coworker gatherings and what better time to do that than this Friday at the Hyatt Hotel for the Chairman's Salute.  I hope you already RSVP'd and I hope to see you all there.  The EA supporting this event, and I look forward to welcoming you as you arrive.   

While I generally don't want to talk about the election results, it can't go unmentioned that the upcoming Republican administration will likely affect the make up of the Supreme Court.  There was one case in particular, Fredrichs vs. California Teachers Association, that could have had potentially significant impacts to our union.  The issue revolves around individual rights to collecting union dues.  A more detailed summary from the New York Times can be found here.  Due to the current deadlock of the Supreme Court a tie affirms the appeal's court decision which favored the unions.  Similar cases will probably be brought forward under the new administration and we plan to keep an eye out.  

We have submitted our recommendations for the next three job classes to study and are currently waiting for the District to respond.  We have requested to study the Air Quality Specialists, Programer Analysts and Clerical staff.  In addition, we have suggested keeping the last contractor, Koff and Associates, to perform the study.  It is our hope that the next three will take less time.   

We have assembled our contract negotiations team and will be having our first meeting on January 12 with the District.  This meeting will focus on groundrules and setting up the framework for the negotiations.  You can count on our team working hard to get us the best contract possible.   

Finally, we plan on having another general membership meeting in February 2017.  Stay tuned for the date and location.   

Again, I would like to say stay safe out there this holiday season.  Thank you, and Merry Everything!
— Chris Coelho, EA President
     eapresident2015@gmail.com

Help us with our next contract
We could still use help with our next contract.  We are looking for members to help us research, gather information, and calculate data.  We are looking for support now since we don't need to wait until we start negotiations to start research.  If you are interested and want to help, please email me and we will set up a meeting to discuss this further.  Thank you. (Chris at eapresident2015@gmail.com)

Social Committee

The EA Social Committee is a dedicated group of members that work hard to promote employee unity, improve moral and to facilitate fun activities for members.  The Social Committee has been responsible for putting together our group A's baseball games, the summer picnic, the Children's Party and helping with the Chairman's Salute.  We help organize games, serve food and set up and clean up at these events.  This is a very positive and enthusiastic group of members but we are always looking for folks to help out.  If you are interested in helping with social activities, or you have an idea for an event you would like to do next year, please come to our next meeting, Thursday, January 12 at 12:30.  Please email Paul Grazzini or Chris Coelho if you are interested in attending.       

EA Board Meetings
The EA Board meets on the second Wednesday of the month in the Bay Area Conference Room 6102. Meeting agendas are posted on the EA and the Public Bulletin boards one week prior to the meeting.  Our next EA Board Meeting will be January 11  at 11:45 am. 

Better know your MOU
SECTION 12.07 HOLIDAYS
1. The following days will be paid holidays for all employees:
New Year’s Day (First day of January)
King’s Birthday (Third Monday of January)
Lincoln’s Birthday (Twelfth day of February)
Washington’s Birthday (Third Monday of February)
Chavez’ Birthday (Thirty-first day of March)
Memorial Day (Last Monday of May)
Independence Day (Fourth of July)
Labor Day (First Monday of September)
Columbus Day (Second Monday of October)
Veterans Day (Eleventh day of November)
Thanksgiving Day (Fourth Thursday of November)
Day After Thanksgiving (Fourth Friday of November)
Christmas Day (Twenty-fifth day of December).

2. Every day appointed by the President of the United States or Governor of California as a holiday.

3. Holidays falling on Sunday will be celebrated on the following Monday. Holidays falling on Saturday will be celebrated on the preceding Friday, except, if the Governor proclaims the following Monday to be the holiday.

4. Employees will be granted 36 hours of floating holidays per year. Except, an employee hired after January 1st and prior to June 1st will be allowed only 8 hours of floating holiday within that fiscal year. Employees hired after May 31st and prior to July 1st will receive no floating holiday for that fiscal year. Employees must request to use a floating holiday in advance. A floating holiday can be taken only with the approval of the employee’s supervisor.

5. Notwithstanding Section 12.07(3), above, employees who are not scheduled to work on a day that is a scheduled holiday for other District employees shall be credited with 8 hours of floating holiday pay in-lieu of the scheduled holiday. The 8 hours of floating holiday shall be credited to the employee’s accrual in the same pay period that the scheduled holiday occurs.

EA Voice Newsletter November 2016

Message from the President
 

Dear Members,

As we enter this holiday season, I would just like to remind members to stay safe out there and enjoy the time with your families.  Of course that also means this is the time for several holiday parties.  The EA will be helping with the Children's Party which will be taking place on December 20th.  Sign ups and more information will be posted soon.  In addition, we are also working with the District in support of this years Chairman's Salute.  More information about this event will be coming out later.     

Speaking of events, the Social Committee was contacted by the Oakland A's about tickets for next year.  While nothing has been set in stone, we are looking at a game between the A's and the Giants!  And  since we are working on this event this early, we will be getting better seats than the third level, value deck seating.

We are continuously updating our website and trying to improve communication with membership, but I could use some help.  If you are familiar with SquareSpace and MailChimp, then please contact me.  I'd like to improve our website and newsletter to make it more user friendly and more eye catching.  

Finally, I would like to say that a classification study for Inspectors, Engineers and Administrative Analysts is almost finished!  These updated classes will be completed when the APCO and the EA President officially sign a side letter next week.  However, it should also be noted that at this time the Air Distinct has indicated to the EA's Meet and Confer team that they are currently not ready to conduct salary surveys for staff.  While this isn't the news we had hoped to hear, the EA assures you that we will energetically pursue this issue as most of the union job specs date back to 1992.  The EA is not going to let this set back get us down, and we plan on submitting our recommendations for the next three classes to be studied immediately.  We plan to stay positive and to move forward as we enter into contract negations next year.  

Thank you, and Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
— Chris Coelho, EA President
     eapresident2015@gmail.com

Help us with our next contract
Are you interested in helping with your next contract?  Are you good at crunching numbers?  Do you like looking at contracts to see what other agencies get for benefits?  Then we could use your help.  We are looking for members to help support the negotiating team.  We are not looking for members to join the negotiating committee, but we are looking for support help.  We are looking for support now as we don't need to wait until we start negotiations to start researching information.  If you are interested and want to help, please email me and we will set up a meeting to discuss this further.  Thank you. (Chris at eapresident2015@gmail.com)

Grievance Committee Brown Bag Session
I'd like to thank everyone that attended our Grievance Committee Brown Bag on November 10.  This is something new that this EA Board is trying and I think these informational sessions will help give members a chance to learn more and support the EA.  We plan on hosting a few more of these informational sessions next year and our next one will probably be the end of January or early February 2017.  

Finance Committee

The Finance Committee is a three member committee convened to assist the Treasurer and to make recommendations to the Board of Directors about the financial structure of the Association. They can assist in the preparation of:

·        Annual Budgets

·        Recommendations on investment strategy

·        Periodic audits of the Employee Association financial records

·        Researching and drafting language for the By-Laws in regards to the finances of the Employees' Association

EA Board Meetings
The EA Board meets on the second Wednesday of the month in the Bay Area Conference Room 6102. Meeting agendas are posted to the EA and the Public Bulletin boards one week prior to the meeting.  Our next EA Board Meeting is Tuesday, December 13  at 12:15.  The location and agenda will be posted one week before the EA board meeting.  

Better know your MOU
SECTION 3.10 ASSOCIATION RIGHTS
Nothing contained in this Memorandum of Understanding shall be interpreted or construed in any way that prohibits or restricts the Association of its rights granted by law and accordingly the Association retains all rights guaranteed to employee organizations under the Meyers-Milias Brown Act (Government Code Sections 3500 and following), the Public Records Act (Government Code Sections 6250 and following) and all other applicable provisions of law.

SECTION 3.11 MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
The rights of the District include, but are not limited to, the exclusive right to, subject to the provisions of this agreement and consistent with applicable laws and regulations:
a. Determine the mission of its constituent departments, boards, and committees.
b. Set standards of service.
c. Determine the procedures and standards of selections for employment and promotion.
d. Hire, promote, transfer, assign, retain in position, direct, or take other nondisciplinary action toward its employees and to relieve them from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons.
e. Maintain the efficiency of governmental operations and exercise complete control and discretion over its organization and the technology of performing its work.
f. Determine the methods, means, and personnel by which government operations are to be conducted.
g. Determine the content of job classifications.
h. Take all necessary actions to carry out its mission in emergencies.

The District will not use the provisions of this Article, for the purpose of discriminating against any employee or to avoid or evade the provisions of this agreement.

The provisions of this Article do not absolve the District or District Management from their obligation to meet and confer with the Association in advance of taking any action changing, modifying, or affecting employee wages, hours or working conditions.

This Section is not subject to the Grievance Procedure.

Meet & Confer Committee

Primer On The EA Meet & Confer Team And The Bargaining Collective Bargaining Process
What is meet and confer? It is a commonly used term among union members. This article will try to succinctly describe the bargaining process and how the EA meet and confer team operates. The bargaining process is an ongoing process. It is a year-round process. It doesn’t occur only during contract negotiations. For instance, the EA recently completed negotiations for new job classification called “Staff Specialist” to resolve a grievance relating to Air Quality Specialists working out of class, as well as several Administrative Analysts in the same department also clearly working out of class. The negotiation of the new Staff Specialist classification resulted in the resolution of the grievance by properly classifying bargaining unit members performing specific types of duties. The newly negotiated class spec also provides staff who were in ostensibly in dead-end positions more upward mobility.

The EA is continuously engaged in collective bargaining with Air District representatives regarding one thing or another. Bargaining of certain items requires that both sides negotiate in good faith. This process is subject to “meet and confer” standards -- the mutual obligation for both the EA and the Air District to negotiate face-to-face promptly upon request by either party for a reasonable period of time in order to exchange freely information, opinions, and proposals, and, to endeavor to reach an agreement. On the other hand, the bargaining of other items is less prescriptive, less formal and with no obligation to reach agreement. This process is sometimes referred to as “meet and consult”.

The EA’s meet and confer team is comprised of bargaining unit members who volunteer their time. The EA’s Constitution and By-Laws require that the meet and confer team include one bargaining unit member from each major employment classification. However, this isn’t always possible because, at any given point in time, not every classification has someone willing to volunteer to participate on the team. Thus, the team is sometimes comprised of multiple negotiators from one bargaining unit class and none from another class. For instance, one year, there were no volunteers from the clerical staff.

Most union employees are aware that every couple of years the EA goes through a 4 to 6 month process to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement, otherwise known as the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The big-ticket items on everyone’s mind during such negotiations include cost of living and medical benefits. What some EA members don’t realize is that, multiple items, usually items subject to the MOU, are negotiated at any given point in time throughout the year. Modifications to the MOU culminate in a side letter upon final approval. During non-contract negotiations, neither side can demand the other to negotiate MOU items. Nevertheless, from time-to-time, situations arise during the middle of the contract that make it beneficial for both sides to amend an MOU provision. That is the case with the creation of the Staff Specialist positon. Side letters to the MOU require agreement from both EA membership and the Air District’s Board of Directors.

There are four subjects the EA can insist on bargaining either during contract negotiations or mid-contract if problems, i.e. grievances, should arise during the middle of the collective bargaining agreement. They include:
1) Terms and conditions of employment;
2) hours and wages;
3) the elements of each job; and
4) safety issues.

These bargainable items are commonly known as “matters within the scope” as defined by a California Government Code adopted in the late 1960’s called the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA). This statute was established to promote full communication between public employers and their employees by providing a reasonable method of resolving disputes between public employers and public employee organizations. MMBA strengthens employer-employee relations through the establishment of uniform and orderly methods of communication between employees and the public agencies by which they are employed.

So what are the responsibilities of the EA’s meet and confer members? Typically, there are eight or more team members with varying degrees of experience with public sector labor relations and/or collective bargaining experience. The most experienced member on the current team has over 20 years of experience with both collective bargaining and labor relations. Team members, some of whom are EA Board Officers, have the following responsibilities:

1. Keep a pulse on what is going on in various Air District departments, to know what the important issues for bargaining unit employees they specifically represent within their own job classifications, to keep communications open with their constituents.

2. Take on assignments relating to specific bargaining subject matters. For instance, when the MOU is negotiated, different individuals on the team will be assigned different provisions within the contract such as medical benefits, the grievance procedure, the hiring procedure and so on.

3. Research topics such as wages and other compensation provided to employees in similar job specifications at other public agencies, research relevant case law such as recent ruling by the California PERB Agency, the state entity that enforces MMBA requirements.

4. Meet and confer team members must also know how to negotiate elements of a collective bargaining agreement. The Air District uses a very experienced consultant as their primary and virtually their sole negotiator. The EA uses a team captain to do most of the speaking at the table while other members will more than enough experience will chime in as necessary.

The meet and confer team reports to the EA Board of Directors. It provides the EA Board with background information on all items subject to bargaining and provides options to the EA Board. At times, the EA’s attorney is consulted on more complicated and/or subtle bargaining issues.

Currently, the meet and confer team is gearing up for negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement which should commence in a month or two depending on how many MOU provisions both sides agree to tackle. Stay tuned!

Administrative Analyst reclassification into Staff Specialists

Over the last several months the District and the EA have been working on a reclassification of several Administrative Analysts positions.  Based on the results of the Koff & Associates classification study, a majority of the current Administrative Analysts will be reclassified into the Staff Specialists position.  This reclassification will give these members the opportunity for a career path.   This reclassification was signed September 21, 2016 by both Mr. Broadbent and the EA President.  A copy of this document has been uploaded onto our documents page.

In addition, pictures from this years picnic have been added to our Pictures page.  

General Membership Meeting September 12

Summer Picnic 2016!